Exact specs or general guidlines?

[MarkKw]

First and foremost::: I am NOT trying to start a "PC" or "traditional" war with this, nor do am I posting this as a way to annoy anyone. I have serious legitimate questions rising from what I have found while looking for ideas before building my personal rifle. I'm just asking, not flaming.

I've been wanting to build a .62 flinter and have decided to go with sort of a Yeager or Yeger (can't get a definite answer on proper spelling) style, big beefy stock to both absorb recoil and also balance a longer barrel than is commonly seen on a this style rifle.

I've looked at many Yeager's over the last year and a half or so and every one is slightly different. The width of the butt varies as does many other things. Looking at kit/parts builder's blue prints, these also list very specific measurments and sizes for XYZ part yet these also vary quite a bit depending on who you buy them from.

I just want to know how one can say with absolute positiveness what is PC or not when there seems to be quite a large gap in specs from one person to another in a single rifle style? I have found stock and barrel lengths to vary from 1/2" to more than 8" as well as finding stocks that are wide and beefy yet seeing some with skinny little buttplates more like a KY rifle.

Thus, my question being: How can one give exacting sizes as I have found on the builder's guides/blue prints (despite what style of gun you are building) when it seems that every one varied quite a bit I would assume to fit the specs of the different customers?

The reason I am asking is that when I first questioned using the the Yeager design but expressed my desire to go with a 34" or longer barrel depending on what felt right to me, I was told that barrel length had to be limited to design specs for the type of rifle I was going to use it on. Somewhere on the web I did see a Yeager sporting a 36" .58 cal barrel (sorry, don't recall off hand what site) yet I was under the impression that the barrel should not exceed 2x".

Granted I am only concerned with the Yeager for my purposes but I can only imagine that these wide variations would likely hold true with other styles as well? So what's the skinny here? Can I use the Yeager as a guide and modify the design as necessary to fit both my wants and needs and still be PC enough should I ever get the opportunity to attend a woods walk or other organized event?

[Fatdutchman]

First off, the word is "Jaeger"...actually it is usually spelled "Jager" with the umlaut marks over the "a". This word means "Hunter", and NOT the gun he carries, why this word ever got associated with a gun, I don't know.

"I've looked at many Yeager's over the last year and a half..." Do you mean modern made ones, or "real" ones? The large majority of modern made German-type rifles are simply built wrong. Primarily, most of them have way too much drop in the butt and the cast off is often not right either. A good average would be to have about 2" to 2 1/4" of drop at the heel (from top of barrel) and AT LEAST 1/4" of cast off, with the nose of the comb cast off a bit as well. This is a drum I have been beating as loudly as I can.

While there are SOME "regional characteristics" found on German rifles, they very often did not stick to them all the time. One gunmaker might make a gun with a stepped wrist one day, and a straight wrist the next. Prussian and Austrian gunbuilders adhered fairly closely to their accepted styles, but most everywhere else, virtually anything goes.

One could go into great depth describing different styles and just what was, and wasn't done on these guns.

An AVERAGE barrel length for a German rifle might be 28". There are shorter ones, and there are longer ones. SOME are just as long as any American rifle. They're not common, but they do exist. I personally have seen one that had a barrel of probably 34"-36". All the rest I have seen were shorter. (actually, in first-hand experience, I have seen more German smoothbore guns than rifles).

It takes a good bit of study and handling to build a German rifle that looks "right", fortunately German rifles are considerably cheaper than American ones!!!

A good starting point for the width of the buttplate would be about 2"...with the exception of some of the guns from the Mainz area, there are relatively few that are any narrower. 2 1/8", 2 1/4" is better.

German guns have REAL cheekpieces, not "chinpieces" as on many later American rifles. They are flat and fit the face quite nicely. The face goes against the side of the stock, not hunkered down over top of it. Some cheekpieces are absolutely huge, but most are of "normal" dimension.

Well, if any of this makes sense, I hope it is helpful and at least gets you started in the right direction.

Ihr ergebener Diener,
Chris Immel

[Donny]

I think as far as Jeagers go, the stock may be thick, but the barrel is not long. Long barrel= slim stock, short barrel=thick stock.

[Birddog6]

Mark, why all the worry & etc. Build the gun the way you want it. If you want a 2.5" drop, fine..... PC means the STYLE of that time & the WAY the equipemnt was made on the rifle. Every gunmaker made his own gun with what he had to make it with at the time. So to be PC you would not put a 1820 percussion lock on a 1930 Jaeger with trim designed as such in 1730 because the technology was not invented yet, etc.. But the drop, stock length, barrel length etc can be what you want, as YOU are not the gunmaker.

And besides that, I don't care WHAT you do to the gun & if you took an original 1730 Jaeger & duplicated it to a "T", someone would find a non-PC thing to say about it....

So, I say build what you want, if they like it fine & if they don't fine, they can go build their own .

Most of the Jaegers I have seen (originals) has 24 to 31" barrels. Most of them I have seen were 50 cal to 62 cal, but I have seen larger & smaller bores. I have 2 of them with 37" barrels because that is what I wanted & I paid for them. I don't care what anyone else thinks of them, I like them. I have build 4-5 of them with 31" barrels, I am working on one now with a 30" barrel & it is a .75 cal. Is it PC ? Dang if I know. Probably not as I used sand paper on it & some superglue in a chip ! ha ha ! Who cares.. it is what I want it to be.

PS: Usually, there are No Specs or Original Plans/Drawing on the old guns, as almost every gunmaker did his own thing.. The drawing you find of them usually someone else made up later, that don't mean it is a set pattern... it means THIS ONE was made to these specs. Exceptions of this would be rifles made for the military with plans & all to be duplicates. (There maay be some original plans of Jaegers, but I have never seen or heard of any. If anyone would know, George Shumway would.

[Fatdutchman]

I don't know if there were any "plans" for any military rifles (or muskets for that matter), however, the powers that were in the various militaries at the time would set out their specifications for a gun. They might, for example, state that the gun must have a barrel of such-and-such length, more or less, and be of a certain caliber, and that might be about it. Sometimes a "pattern" gun was made and sent around to various contractors to copy it...more or less...they usually weren't that awful picky. For example, the famous Pistor military rifle was made by the equally famous T. W. Pistor, who no doubt was under contract with the Prussians to build military rifles, probably to specifications set forth by ol' Fritz himself, therefore, all of his military rifles, no matter to what country they were sold, would look pretty much alike...besides, most of the Protestant north and western German countries pretty well followed the Prussians in most everything.

With the British Pattern 1776 rifle, the English government contracted out with several makers, some of them in Hanover. Some of these guns are of the somewhat more familiar "British" pattern, and some of them look quite like the aforementioned Pistor gun! They didn't care...the guns fit the requirements and worked well.

[MarkKw]

Thanks so much for info. I searched all over the web and found quite widely varying description on the Jaegers from being stubby little carbine looking rifles to being long heavy battle rifles where if you ran out of powder anf ball you still had a massive club to work with. This combined with your input has eased my mind a lot on the building part. It'll be a flint and I think I can feel confident that Mr. Chambers will sell me the proper lock.

I'll probably make the rest of the hardware myself which brings me to my final question of brass or iron? I kinda like iron better myself, does it matter?

[Birddog6]

Most of the originals I have seen have iron trim & were "In the White" barrels, locks & trim or all blued rifles. But there again, build it how you want it.
As for the lock, Jim's Germanic lock is an excellent lock for one. If you don't like the bananna shape of the Germanic, his Virginia or Colonial lock does well also.

[shunka]

I had the lucky opportunity to get sent to Germany 3 years ago on the company's dime. I took a week of vacation so that I could "recover from the jet lag and be more effective at the training for which I was being sent"...:-)
During that time the Lovely Spousal Unit and myself drove from Heidelberg to Munich to Salzberg and finally to Vienna and back to Heidleberg. Naturally we hit more castles (Schlosses) and museums than I could count. Nearly all of them had examples of Jaeger Rifles that had been used by the previous residents. Since these folks were quite well off, all examples were heavily engraved, and almost all were blued! They were all large bore, .54 and up; I also noticed that there was a wide variation of barrel lengths in the early fllintlock rifles, but most of the later percussion Jaegers were quite short; perhaps 28 to 30 inch barrels. Also, nearly all of them were equipped with sling attachments: Buttons on the buttstock and a sling loop on the forestock. I don't recall that any were slings were displayed.

good luck on your Jaeger!
shunka

[MarkKw]

Help me out here Birddog, what exactly do you mean by "in the white"?

I'm a little confused on this since all the "brown" barrels I've seen have been a deep rust color. Having looked on the web I took note that some of the repo's being done have a brown barrel that looks more as if it's been run over a wire wheel taking almost all the rust off and leaving only the light brown spots behind. When I did my .58/24ga smoothbore, I did it with the deep dark brown...is there a difference and if so what or should I ask what is correct or does it really matter?

Shunka, I have not worked out the details yet on barrel length but have decided on 1:96 or a bit slower twist. This determination was made based on feedback I got from .62 shooters. Seems the more powder you put to the ball, the slower the twist must be to maintain stability, faster the twist the lower the max powder load you can use and keep accuracy. One fellow, promissed to keep his name to myself, shoot a .62 as his primary. 34" barrel and he's seating a PRB over 180 grains of 2F with an .050" touch hole and can still get increases in velocity up to 195 grains. I know the guy won't yank my chain and when he tells me he's shooting a 6" trajectory arc over 300 yds, I believe him. He also said using this load on a woods walk he dang near ripped the 24" diameter 1/4" thick steel gong right off the tree at 200 yds. I also believe him when he tells me that this 10.5 pound rifle he shooting kicks like a mule when loaded hot! ;D

The .62 is quite impressive and I really wish I'd have known then what I know now before buying my .50

[Birddog6]

Mark: "In the White" means the barrel & trim is not finished but left silver to do a natural patina or kept polished or silver. I hunt with a Jaeger that is "In the White" and have built several Jaegers the same way, and a couple of other rifles that way.

I suggest you stay in the Normal range on the twist & charge for your Jaeger be it a 54, 58, or 62 caliber. If this real slow twist & tremendous charge was what was needed & accurate, everyone else would be doing it....

But rather than start a dispute over outlandish charges & shot distances of a patched RB, I will refrain & state that if the best rate of twist & charge was more than what most people are using, everyone would be using something else. Also all the barrel makers would not be selling Thousands of barrels in 1-56, 1-66, 1-70 & etc.

I suggest you stay with the normal of things & safety of it, and let the Darwin Award guys go on & do their own thing...

[Cherokee]

MarkKw said:

Shunka, I have not worked out the details yet on barrel length but have decided on 1:96 or a bit slower twist. This determination was made based on feedback I got from .62 shooters. Seems the more powder you put to the ball, the slower the twist must be to maintain stability, faster the twist the lower the max powder load you can use and keep accuracy. The .62 is quite impressive and I really wish I'd have known then what I know now before buying my .50

MarkKw
I think what you are referring to here is Forsythe type rifling. Lt. James Forsythe likes large bore rifles and came up with rifling that was very slow, narrow lands and wide grooves. He found that when the twist was to fast, it stripped the ball. A slow twist meant more velocity, narrow lands gave less resistance like a smooth bore, all adding up to more powder for more velocity. Much more to this, but if you can find a copy of his book "The Sporting Rifle And Its Projectiles" it will make good reading.
October Country was building these rifles, not sure if they are now. Twist on their .62 caliber was 1:104-I have a Four Bore with 1:144 twist. How slow is that?
Don't just count on what other manufacturers use for their twist, remember TC has and still uses the 1:48 twist to do all, and does neither (ball or conical) well. Hope this helps. Good Luck!

[Fatdutchman]

Most of the old German rifles I have seen first-hand (and all that I personally own) have brass mounts. You will see a higher number of iron mounts in royal collections and museums because these are usually all higher grade guns. Iron mounts are more time consuming to produce than brass ones (though "plain" or "ordinary man's" guns with iron mounts do exist). Contrary to popular belief, there are a LOT of 18th century German rifles that are relatively plain...very equivalent to most American rifles. Gun ownership, shooting, and yes, even hunting, were rather common in much of the German lands at the time.

Go to www.Hermann-historica.com , which is a good auction house in Munich. They had an auction recently, and there are several good guns shown on their website under the antique guns...guns and rifles section. Not nearly as many as they usually have. I think all of the guns shown have brass mounts, many of them unengraved....most of them in near perfect condition as well! Here you can take a quick peek at some real German guns, and not what a modern maker thinks that a German gun "should" look like!

[Fatdutchman]

Oh, yes, most of them were left white. There are some with charcoal blued barrels, and quite a few that were temper blued. I have one that has a tiny trace of the shiny bright temper blue on the bottom of the barrel under the nosecap. The temper blue is just that...the barrel is heated until it reaches the desired blue color. It looks good, but rubs off almost instantly, so many of the guns with white barrels could very likely have been temper blued originally.

[MarkKw]

I had one intent on this rifle and that was to build the best hunting rifle I could for what I wanted. I want a rifle that will be capable of taking big game like moose and bear without hesitation. I started studying, something I didn't do before buying my .50, and spent over a year now just collecting info and I'm still learning tons!

I found a host of info on velocities, loads, powder, patches, wads, ect...once I started looking. Making dozens of phone calls and sending several dozen emails I managed to talk with a whole bunch of folks about what they use and why. You are correct that most folks will stay with a 1:56 to 1:70 twist in PRB shooters. Going on what I learned from others, there is no doubt this is a great choice. Also going on what I learned from these people is that the .62 will perform quite well to 200 yds if tuned to do it. The ballistics of the .610 RB are quite good and the combination of it's weight and cross sectional area leave no doubt as to it's lethality.

What everyone agreed on was range. If I was to use a faster (normal) rate of twist, I would likely not have the accuracy when using the higher powder charge required to maintain lethal velocity on the RB at 200 yds. I noted with my 1:48 twist rifles, the velocity is critical for both PRB and conicals, too much or not enough and forget it. Having a .32 and .50 that respond exactly the same way proves this quite easily especially when I can take a friends 1:66 .50 and crank it up a lot hotter than mine yet it falls off at a much higher point than mine on the low side.

Hunting being the key, high charges are fine since I won't be out taking a pounding punching holes in paper all day long with it. The primary point will be focus on cold shot and long range accuracy with such. I'm not concerned with the barrel either as it will be made with a good steel alloy and will have no trouble holding up to the high charges. This is another reason why this rifle will likley have a little longer than normal barrel, room eough to burn the powder.

I have yet to find Forsythe's book but admit to not having looked lately for it. I really want to read it!

I like the idea of getting a natural patina and I really like the looks of a polished lock too!

Thanks for the link dutchie, I'll check them out.

[Cherokee]

MarkKw said:

I had one intent on this rifle and that was to build the best hunting rifle I could for what I wanted. I have yet to find Forsythe's book but admit to not having looked lately for it. I really want to read it!

.

MarkKw
Forsythe's rifles were built for hunting-hence slow twist and lots of powder.
John Shorb of October Country is where I found Forsythe's book. He also can give you a lot of info on the type of rifle your wanting to build. At one time he had a flint 66cal he sent to me to look at. Oh and by the way Forsythe's favorite was the .69cal (14 bore)
If you cant find his book and you still want info I think I can find a article I'll copy and send you.

[MarkKw]

I'll check with John for the book, he's one of the many people I talked to that suggested slow twist and mucho powder for what I want. BTW, if I'm building a little .40 for paper punching...one extreme to the other I suppose! ;D