Kibler Fowler, Fusil conversion

Hi All,

Been eying up the new kibler English Fowler. Been wondering how good a base it would serve to make an English officers fusil? Like cut the stock back and mount a bayonet. Add sling swivels. Any thoughts?

I am no expert on how correct this would be. I do think it would look pretty! As for a bayonet, I wouldn’t use one hard on such a svelte barrel. The 16 gauge is very thin at the muzzle. The 20 gauge is just a bit thicker so I would use that instead, but stabbing only, no stab and cut!

Hi,
As someone who built several authentic British officer's fusils, I think you could do it and it might turn out quite nicely. However, some things to think about. First, it would be best if the gun was 16 gauge. I don't know if Jim offers that size or not but that would be close to the 0.66 caliber most carbine and fusils were. You probably have to move the forward barrel lug and position it further back. You need at least 3 1/4" to 3 1/2" of barrel protruding from the end of the stock to properly fit a carbine bayonet with 3" socket. There must be a little clearance between the end of the socket and the front of the stock. You will also want to either mount a brass nose cap or install a simple sheet brass nose band around the forward end of the stock to reinforce it. Given the slimness of Jim's stock, you will have to install a lug on the barrel to support the forward sling swivel. Don't just drill a hole through the slim stock and hope that works. Attach a lug like the originals. That lug should be located such that when the sling swivel rests on the stock, it overlaps the second ramrod pipe so the sling does not block the ramrod channel. I don't know how robust Jim's ramrod is but you may want to swap the wooden one with a steel rammer from a short land Brown Bess. That might require you to put an internal bushing in the forward pipe to reduce the inside diameter. However, if the wooden rod is fairly strong not really whimpy like most original English fowlers, you might be able just to use the wooden rod. Finally, you will have to add a rear swivel. These were almost always attached to the front of the trigger guard. You could adapt Jim's guard by soldering on a lug for the hole. If you do that, I urge you to make a lug with a pin on the bottom that fits into a hole in the forward return of the guard and another pin that fits into a hole on the front of the trigger bow. With a good low temp silver bearing solder you should be able to create a strong attachment aided by the pins.

dave

redcoatrifleman said:

Hi All,

Been eying up the new kibler English Fowler. Been wondering how good a base it would serve to make an English officers fusil? Like cut the stock back and mount a bayonet. Add sling swivels. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

In general officers fusils looked like a sporterized bess. A little shorter and lighter, and not normally designed to hold a bayonet. Often the side plate and wrist ectusion was fancy, and silver was common
Officers didn’t usually fire in battle but would use a fusil in times of hand to hand combat. Offices fusils usually didn’t seem to have a bayonet lug, as in times of hand to hand they would use their sword

Hi Tenngun,
No you are wrong. Officer fusils had bayonets that were carbine or full sized and officers were expected to use them and fire the gun particularly when in the forested environments in North America. Some generals, Clinton, Burgoyne, and Cornwallis, discouraged fusil use but Howe strongly supported it. There is nothing "in general" about the style of officer's fusil because they were privately purchased so they could look like scaled down Brown Besses or they might look more like fowlers. The common denominator is they had full or carbine sized bayonets fitted and sling swivels. Don't be swayed by modern repros labeled "officer's fusils" by makers who don't know much about the real thing.

dave

16 gauge is available as is the 20. Here they are for comparison.

The 16 would have ample stopping power up close and futher out

redcoatrifleman said:

Hi All,

Been eying up the new kibler English Fowler. Been wondering how good a base it would serve to make an English officers fusil? Like cut the stock back and mount a bayonet. Add sling swivels. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I would go with Jim Chamber’s officer’s fusil kit, it’s more specifically designed for that type of project and is actually based on an officer’s fusil. Larry Zorne’s has an officer’s fusil kit and the rifle shoppe has many to choose from with matching bayonets.

As far as buying a Kibler Kit and converting it to a military fusil i woudln’t. I’ve seen those projects go sideways on people.

Jim’s kits are pretty much complete, deviating from his pattern into something else could have complications, for example cutting back the stock to have a barrel overhang could be problematic for the underlug, and front thimble. The stock is also cut for a wooden rod, not a steel rod, so you’d have to add a retention spring in there or line the thimbles. I’m not saying it can’t be done, just that there are other options that are designed to be fusils.

On another note, Jim’s products have great warranties why mess with it.

redcoatrifleman said:

Hi All,

Been eying up the new kibler English Fowler. Been wondering how good a base it would serve to make an English officers fusil? Like cut the stock back and mount a bayonet. Add sling swivels. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Did officers really use a bayonet? Just wonderin'

springfield art said:

Did officers really use a bayonet? Just wonderin'

Click to expand...

Read post #5.

tenngun said:

In general officers fusils looked like a sporterized bess. A little shorter and lighter, and not normally designed to hold a bayonet. Often the side plate and wrist ectusion was fancy, and silver was common
Officers didn’t usually fire in battle but would use a fusil in times of hand to hand combat. Offices fusils usually didn’t seem to have a bayonet lug, as in times of hand to hand they would use their sword

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks. I recently got an old Jap Bess from the Bi-Cen Era, that had been used for years by a guy in a "Light Company"; it was shortened a few inches, but not usable with a bayonet. It's got a patina and had been in many "re-enacted" battles! Those Jap Besses, like I had during the Bi-Cen, have locks that are amazingly durable and reliable.

i second the chambers kit. i believe most original fusils [ military] would have been lugged not pinned and have a hooked breech also.. maybe dave will step in on this.

Hi,
Yes, officers did use their bayonets when needed. Remember, we are discussing line officers here not senior commanders on horseback. The interest in arming line officers with fusils grew out of the British army's experience fighting in the forests of North America where it might be every man for himself. Moreover, an officer carrying a firearm with bayonet may not have been as obvious a target to American marksmen as one carrying a spontoon or leading with a sword. The bright red regimental coats were a bad enough mark but a spontoon or sword could be discerned from quite a distance. It was that diminished visibility to the troops and a preoccupation with shooting rather than leading that Clinton, Burgoyne, and Cornwallis objected to but Howe embraced.

There are quite a number of officer's fusils that had pinned barrels and plain barrel breeches, and there were others with barrel keys and standing breeches. There were also some fusils that were rifled and officers sometimes hunted for their company while on service in North America. Chambers English fowler might be a better option but I suspect you could use Kibler's kit if you are up to the doing what I recommended (FlinterNick must not have read my previous post) . Again everyone that there is a lot of misinformation out there on the internet about "officer's fusils" with much garbage promoted by collectors who want to enhance the value of their guns with a "story".

dave

dave_person said:

Hi,
Yes, officers did use their bayonets when needed. Remember, we are discussing line officers here not senior commanders on horseback. The interest in arming line officers with fusils grew out of the British army's experience fighting in the forests of North America where it might be every man for himself. Moreover, an officer carrying a firearm with bayonet may not have been as obvious a target to American marksmen as one carrying a spontoon or leading with a sword. The bright red regimental coats were a bad enough mark but a spontoon or sword could be discerned from quite a distance. It was that diminished visibility to the troops and a preoccupation with shooting rather than leading that Clinton, Burgoyne, and Cornwallis objected to but Howe embraced.

There are quite a number of officer's fusils that had pinned barrels and plain barrel breeches, and there were others with barrel keys and standing breeches. There were also some fusils that were rifled and officers sometimes hunted for their company while on service in North America. Chambers English fowler might be a better option but I suspect you could use Kibler's kit if you are up to the doing what I recommended (FlinterNick must not have read my previous post) . Again everyone that there is a lot of misinformation out there on the internet about "officer's fusils" with much garbage promoted by collectors who want to enhance the value of their guns with a "story".

dave

Click to expand...

Hi Dave, I did read your post, converting a Kibbler Fowler to officer fusil is just something I wouldn’t do. I’m not a fan of converting Fowlers to officers guns or militia guns. I’m not disputing the historical context that you were mentioning. I just don’t like the so called defarb projects I’d much rather work on a custom fusil from Scratch rather than truncate a kit that’s true to kiblers psttern. But I do like the Chambers officers fusil and I intend to grab one when chambers has English walnut.

I don’t recommend others do it for the reasons i mentioned. While you have shown it can be done successfully I don’t think it ought to be.

Hi Nick,
I certainly have not shown that you can convert a Kibler, just speculated that it might be done if someone can accomplish the steps I described. I think it could be done having seen some original fusils that looked like slim fowlers with the changes I mentioned. Of course those guns were not converted fowlers, rather they appear to have been made as fusils from the beginning. It is ironic that there is a lot of interest in them considering not many were apparently made. I don't believe officers carried them at all on European battlefields just a small subset that served in America. Even great collectors and authors like George Neumann present dodgy examples. In "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" he shows 2 British "officer's fusils", which are highly suspect. The first is by David Collumbell and dated to the 1740s. However, the lock is marked "Ludlam" and the only Ludlam I find was working in the 1790s. The trigger guard is from the late 1760s and 1770s. The other "Ketland" fusil he dates to the 1760s. However, it is musket bore, and has London proofs. Ketland assembled his guns in Birmingham so the barrel was shipped to London at high cost for proofing and them shipped back to Birmingham for assembly. Ketland only did that for of few very high end guns, not inexpensive military guns. The gun is very fishy and likely is at best a commercially made musket.

If I were to try converting a Kibler to an officer's fusil, I think I would order one in hard maple and turn it into a colonial-made piece.

dave

dave_person said:

Hi Nick,
I certainly have not shown that you can convert a Kibler, just speculated that it might be done if someone can accomplish the steps I described. I think it could be done having seen some original fusils that looked like slim fowlers with the changes I mentioned. Of course those guns were not converted fowlers, rather they appear to have been made as fusils from the beginning. It is ironic that there is a lot of interest in them considering not many were apparently made. I don't believe officers carried them at all on European battlefields just a small subset that served in America. Even great collectors and authors like George Neumann present dodgy examples. In "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" he shows 2 British "officer's fusils", which are highly suspect. The first is by David Collumbell and dated to the 1740s. However, the lock is marked "Ludlam" and the only Ludlam I find was working in the 1790s. The trigger guard is from the late 1760s and 1770s. The other "Ketland" fusil he dates to the 1760s. However, it is musket bore, and has London proofs. Ketland assembled his guns in Birmingham so the barrel was shipped to London at high cost for proofing and them shipped back to Birmingham for assembly. Ketland only did that for of few very high end guns, not inexpensive military guns. The gun is very fishy and likely is at best a commercially made musket.

If I were to try converting a Kibler to an officer's fusil, I think I would order one in hard maple and turn it into a colonial-made piece.

dave

Click to expand...

Yea the hard maple would be a good and authentic.

I’m working my way into custom Fowlers and fusils projects, i remember holding your rifled officer’s Fusil at Washington’s crossing, it’s one of the nicest guns I’ve ever seen. Those custom fusils are very interesting projects and can almost be what ever you desire it to be in accordance to the eras you’re working within.

dave_person said:

Even great collectors and authors like George Neumann present dodgy examples.

Click to expand...

A lot of things in his book are subject to some debate. It was a product of its time.