Chambers Kit V. Dunlap Woodcraft

[phillippeters]

I am thinking about my next project. I want to build an Issac Haines “C” in 54. I am considering ether a Chambers kit or a Dunlap Woodcraft kit. I here the Chambers kit has problems with the ramrod hole interference with the lock bolt. Anyone have any experience with these kits?

 

[TANSTAAFL]

I put together a Dunlap IH a few years ago, went OK slick as a button, very little inletting work was required. Wayne quoted me one grade of wood, it was at least a grade or two better than the quote. But, the barrel had a lousy breech job (no fault of Waynes) done on it, Rice barrels only from now on.

 

[Flintandsteel]

Like Tanstaafl said.
Chambers is a little more finished stock, but Waynes will give a lot better wood for the money.
Wayne's is a take off to Chamber's but the basic carving of the stock is not quire as good. I have had trouble with the rr hole as well.
If you are buying one that is NOT in stock, just ask that the sideplate NOT be inletted and that problem goes away. By the way, many originals can be found with the same rr problem, but shouldn't be necessary.
Hope this helps.

 

[charcloth]

Phillip,

I posted a similiar question not long ago. After reading the responses, talking to Wayne and looking at other kits I decided to go with a Dunlap.

Charcloth.

 

[LSU TIGER]

It will help to use as small of a screw for the front lock bolt as possible. I usually use an 8 - 32 and a 10 - 32 for the rear lock bolt. Additionally, you can't mix them up!

 

[Java Man]

I have a scratch built rifle, made for me that has a 6-32 front lock bolt. Works fine.

 

I haven't built the Chambers Haines kit, but I'm currently building the Early Lancaster kit, and there was absolutely no problem with the front lock bolt. I think the problem you're referring to is with one of their fowler kits, not their rifle kits. I hand drilled my front lock bolt and it just skimmed the bottom of the barrel channel, definitely no problems with ramrod interference.

 

[Ed Blake]

Having put a Chambers kit together and seeing the kit a friend ordered from Dunlap's I would say the Chambers product is superior. The tang and lock mortices on the Dunlap kit were inlet incorrectly and required alteration. The tang had to be hammered longer because the inlet was too long. also, the brass furniture was a little rough on the Dunlap. It seems the more machine inletting done on a piece of wood the more chance for mistakes. On my Chambers kit, I did have the issue with the front lock bolt. I just filed a small notch for the ramrod and it worked fine.

 

[chipper]

I built the Issac Haines in .50 just a few months ago. I had a problem with the ramrod slot bieng drilled improperly causing me to have a short ramrod. Besides that, the gun went together perfectly, if feels and shoots perfectly. I would certainly buy another. The name alone is worth it to buy a Chambers kit.

Regards

 

[Vaino]

My only complaint w/ the Chambers'Early Lancaster kit was the slight interference of the front lock bolt into the RR hole, which was remedied by filing a groove in the bolt. If another is ordered, I'll omit the side plate inlet. Otherwise, it was pure pleasure to assemble this kit.......Fred

 

[Packdog]

I don't think the problem with the RR hole has anything to do with the kit maker. It can happen with any of them. If the drill bit hits a real curly burly part of the wood it can wander off a little. Long drill bits will flex and they will follow the path of least resistance.
PD

 

[Vaino]

The front lock bolt location can be a "tricky" problem, whether w/ a kit or w/ a "scratch built". Normally I favor the barrel side and will groove the barrel if it's necessary. The Chambers' kit side plate inlet and side plate don't allow for this, so any deviation in drilling results in some RR hole interference. As I said previously, if I order another Early Lancaster kit from Chambers, I'll omit the sideplate inletting.....Fred

 

[TANSTAAFL]

The Dunlap IH I referenced was a lefty, so the side plate was not inletted. From the sound of things, glad it wasn't.

 

[Packdog]

Flehto,

Good point about the front lock bolt being predrilled and positioned because of the plate. I was reading about the lockplate was not connecting the front bolt part. I could see where that could be a problem.
PD

 

[Bookie]

'Dawg, glad to see that you and I finally agreee on somethin'!! :grin: Where's yer avitar? Bookie

 

[Birddog6]

I have built allot of rifles from precarves & what I have found is all of the carvers make errors. Have had all kinds of inlets wrong, RR holes wrong, etc. Somehow I have always made them work but was sure aggravated at times.
About 1/2 the time I ran into the front lockbolt problem, so after that first couple times, when I get a stock in the first thing I would do is drill a 1/8" test hole about 4-5" from the breech drilling down thru the barrel channel into the RR hole & SEE if there it enough room for a front bolt. If not, then back it goes. I expect them to provide me with a correctly drilled RR hole & if it is not correct, it is going back to the vender for a refund or replacement.

I buy allot of wood from Wayne Dunlap & probably have 15+ stock blanks from him here right now. I will tell ya that Wayne has done me Super. Always nice & Always very good wood. However, I have found that I would rather do my own inlets on most rifles. If I am going to have one roughed in, I order a blank from Wayne & have him get the butt rough shaped and the barrel channel cut, RR groove & hole cut, and this way I can put my lock & trigger & pipes & whatever anyplace I want them, finish shapping myself, etc.
However I email him Exactly how I want it done so there is no misunderstandings & no extra work doen on the blank. (Fred Miller also does an excellent job of this, as well as Jacks Mountain Stocks)

I have built one rifle that the parts came from Jim Chambers (I think). I am not absolutely sure because I bought it from another guy rather than from Jim himself, the guy had died & his friends said he was sure it came from Chambers. This rifle went together well & was a quality parts set. The other parts sets from Chambers I have seen have been all very good quality.
You will pay more for the Chambers kit for this extra quality, so it just boils down to where you want to lay your money. A lil smoother finsh on the wood & little smoother castings, or a lil better wood on the stock ? I always went for the better wood & little less price. Finish of the stock means nothing to me as I am gonna carve it up & take off wood anyway, so the sanded finish is wasted om me other than it shows the gain well.

But anyway, I think Either of the venders will do ya well & furnish ya the stuff to build a real nice rifle.

Also, regardless of who you get the parts set from, if it is a Flintlock I would insist on a Chambers built lock. They are undoubtedly the best locks made today, IMHO.

:thumbsup: