Jim Chambers vs. TVM Kit

[TreeRat91]

I've built 2 Chambers' Early Lancasters and they assembled w/ only a couple each of minor errors. ....considered pretty good for a parts set. Also did a Hawken from Pecatonica and initially found the lock inlet to be mislocated. Went down there and they cut me a new precarve while I waited and the new stock was their top grade which was one grade above my original. You'll actually learn a lot if a Chambers' is chosen.....FredView attachment 113053View attachment 113054

That grain is beautiful! How do they shoot And what caliber?

 

[TreeRat91]

Hi ACFlowers91,
I recommend Chambers over TVM kits. I am familiar with both and dislike the architecture of almost all TWM offerings. The web of wood separating the barrel from the ramrod channel is too thick creating a clunky appearance usually with the ramrod hanging below the muzzle cap. The rest of the architecture is so generic that it puts me to sleep. Chambers has a much greater actual diversity of guns because they don't use the same stock patterns for multiple offerings like TVM. I have experience with both companies products so my opinion is not based on hearsay. Chambers York kit is a fine rifle but take a look at the Pennsylvania fowler, which for which rifled barrels and steel hardware are offered.
https://www.flintlocks.com/rifles03.htmIt is a sleek, beautiful gun and a rifled version in 54 caliber will weigh in at just about 7 lbs. It might be amenable to a nice John Newcomer. Another good offering is Chambers Isaac Haines rifle. Here is a link to a thread about building one.
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/building-a-chambers-isaac-haines-rifle-kit.116533/
dave

Hi Dave, I was wondering if you have any knowledge of or experience with Tennessee Valley Manufacturing? I believe it’s tan by Jack Garner? I stumbled across them and are interested in their kits as well if they’re a quality kit. Thanks I’m advance for the assistance!

 

[Nor'Easter]

I built a Chambers York in 40 caliber, beautiful gun. I think they make a 50 cal, but not a 54 in the York. I also built a Edward Marshall in 54 from Chambers and am working on an English Fowler. In my limited experience they are superb. I talked to Barbie Chambers this morning as a matter of fact...

Buckskin. Was this rifle for yourself or another. Wanted to know what the .40 cal weighed as Chamber's lists the .50 cal at 7 3/4 lbs.

 

[Buckskinn]

Buckskin. Was this rifle for yourself or another. Wanted to know what the .40 cal weighed as Chamber's lists the .50 cal at 7 3/4 lbs.

It was for me. I just weighed the 40 York at 8 lb and 6 oz. Heavier than I thought, doesn't handle like an +8lb gun.

 

[dave_person]

Hi ACFlowers91,
I believe Matt Avance who owns Tenn Valley Muzzleloading (TVM) at one time worked for Jack Garner at Tenn Valley Manufacturing. Matt went his own way and Jack kept his business going. I have experience with Garner's work and products. Jack is a very competent gun maker (so is Matt Avance) but his work tends to be generic much like TVM and marketed to price point conscious customers. I bought a generic precarved Lancaster stock from Jack, which worked well for a 1792 contract rifle after I fit the proper barrel. Like TVM, Jack cuts corners to reduce price doing things like routing out the ramrod hole from the bottom of the barrel channel rather than drill the hole. That is not really a problem but I don't personally like it so I covered over the top of the routed channel with a strip of maple and glued it in place to hide the routing. Garner rifles often have wood screws anchoring the barrel tang, which does not work very well if you remove your barrel very often to clean it. The forward lock screw is often a short wood screw and does not thread into the lock and it serves to hold the front of the side plate on while making it easy to avoid having a bolt obstruct the ramrod hole. One of my best friends has a Garner 20 gauge smoothbore, which I worked over for him. The stock is generic Lancaster rifle, the octagon to round Long Hammock barrel is heavy and not well balanced for a fowler, and the Siler lock and trigger needed a lot of work. The stock was ash and attractive but Garner really did not stain the ash, rather he used a colored finish, which wore off in spots revealing the plain wood underneath. Garner's products are about the same level of design, fit, and finish as TVM. Chambers is better.

dave

 

[TreeRat91]

Hi ACFlowers91,
I believe Matt Avance who owns Tenn Valley Muzzleloading (TVM) at one time worked for Jack Garner at Tenn Valley Manufacturing. Matt went his own way and Jack kept his business going. I have experience with Garner's work and products. Jack is a very competent gun maker (so is Matt Avance) but his work tends to be generic much like TVM and marketed to price point conscious customers. I bought a generic precarved Lancaster stock from Jack, which worked well for a 1792 contract rifle after I fit the proper barrel. Like TVM, Jack cuts corners to reduce price doing things like routing out the ramrod hole from the bottom of the barrel channel rather than drill the hole. That is not really a problem but I don't personally like it so I covered over the top of the routed channel with a strip of maple and glued it in place to hide the routing. Garner rifles often have wood screws anchoring the barrel tang, which does not work very well if you remove your barrel very often to clean it. The forward lock screw is often a short wood screw and does not thread into the lock and it serves to hold the front of the side plate on while making it easy to avoid having a bolt obstruct the ramrod hole. One of my best friends has a Garner 20 gauge smoothbore, which I worked over for him. The stock is generic Lancaster rifle, the octagon to round Long Hammock barrel is heavy and not well balanced for a fowler, and the Siler lock and trigger needed a lot of work. The stock was ash and attractive but Garner really did not stain the ash, rather he used a colored finish, which wore off in spots revealing the plain wood underneath. Garner's products are about the same level of design, fit, and finish as TVM. Chambers is better.

dave

Thanks so much Dave! I think I’m either going to get the Chambers York in .50, or the PA Fowler with a rifled .50 cal barrel. I called Chambers today, but got a voicemail saying that they’re closed until 1/17. So I guess my gun ordering will be on hold until then. I really appreciate the guidance!

 

[MAC1967]

I have built both a TVM and a Chambers . . . each has different strengths. On my Chambers PA fowler the ramrod thimbles were almost fully inlet and the barrel and lock and tang were maybe 85% inlet, the stock was shaped more . . on TVM the barrel and lock and tang were more inlet perhaps 95% and I think the lock or tang/trigger were pre-drilled . . I can't recall which, but don't think it was both. I would say Chambers does the same pre-work for the kit overall. . .whereas the TVM had more attention to the lock, tang, and trigger area and less ahead of the lock . . the barrel / tang was even set in epoxy. As a Left-hander TVM offers more choice . . . the criticism of TVM being less historically correct and looking similar from model to moded is legit, but someone who studies the originals can change that somewhat on the TVM with some modest shaping and moldings. In short, a few things were easier on my Chamber PA fowler and a few things were easier on my TVM late lancaster. Both companies are great people to work with, and both make a fine kit. That's my takeaway.

 

[TreeRat91]

I have built both a TVM and a Chambers . . . each has different strengths. On my Chambers PA fowler the ramrod thimbles were almost fully inlet and the barrel and lock and tang were maybe 85% inlet, the stock was shaped more . . on TVM the barrel and lock and tang were more inlet perhaps 95% and I think the lock or tang/trigger were pre-drilled . . I can't recall which, but don't think it was both. I would say Chambers does the same pre-work for the kit overall. . .whereas the TVM had more attention to the lock, tang, and trigger area and less ahead of the lock . . the barrel / tang was even set in epoxy. As a Left-hander TVM offers more choice . . . the criticism of TVM being less historically correct and looking similar from model to moded is legit, but someone who studies the originals can change that somewhat on the TVM with some modest shaping and moldings. In short, a few things were easier on my Chamber PA fowler and a few things were easier on my TVM late lancaster. Both companies are great people to work with, and both make a fine kit. That's my takeaway.

Thank you! Yeah, both seem like pretty reputable companies that put out some beautiful guns.

 

[MAC1967]

I would add one more comment here. Jim Chambers makes rifles that are exact or near-exact copies of original rifles from the 18th Century. They are "historically correct" and traceable to a real-life builder in the mid 1700's. For many people on this forum, and for me too, that means something.

TVM doesn't really do this.

However, 99% of the people who have seen my two rifles in my office, are modern shooters. They don't know a John Noll rifle from a Jacob Dickert from a new Pedersoli. They just see a neat "Kentucky rifle." Historical correctness may matter on this forum, but it rarely matters in other places . . . If someone likes a TVM - that's perfectly fine and respectable. What impresses most people is, and it perhaps should be this way, is that I say, yeah I built that one.

 

[TreeRat91]

I would add one more comment here. Jim Chambers makes rifles that are exact or near-exact copies of original rifles from the 18th Century. They are "historically correct" and traceable to a real-life builder in the mid 1700's. For many people on this forum, and for me too, that means something.

TVM doesn't really do this.

However, 99% of the people who have seen my two rifles in my office, are modern shooters. They don't know a John Noll rifle from a Jacob Dickert from a new Pedersoli. They just see a neat "Kentucky rifle." Historical correctness may matter on this forum, but it rarely matters in other places . . . If someone likes a TVM - that's perfectly fine and respectable. What impresses most people is, and it perhaps should be this way, is that I say, yeah I built that one.

I agree with a lot of what you said. Once Chambers opens back up from their break, I think I’m gonna order a York kit.

 

[Redlemur60]

Thank you for all of that! I’ll definitely look into the PA Fowler! I talked to I believe Barbie (?) at Chambers, and she advised that the York balanced a little better. I’m a smaller person (5’5”) so I’m looking for a smaller person rifle.

Im no giant ,5'6""you get used to long rifles . And the advantage when aiming is worth it.
Hanshi and rgw are giving a1 advice.

 

[Texas Gil]

Pecatonica SMR kit is $300 cheaper than Kibler kit. What does Kibler provide for the $300 extra?

 

[springfield art]

Hi all, I’m sure this as been asked multiple times, but I figured after searching and not finding a ton of info I would ask. I am looking at building my first flintlock in either .50 or .54 cal for hunting whitetail and paper. I am looking at either the Early York kit from Jim Chambers, or the Southern Basic kit from TVM. I’m wondering if one is a better suited kit for a beginner as far as what work still needs to be completed. Is one outfit better to work with over the other/offer better quality? Or are there any other kits/builders you recommend I check out? I’ve read good things about Kibler kits, but was looking for something a little more involved. If this isn’t the correct place for this thread, just say so and I’ll delete it.

Thanks!

If you're doing a First Flintlock go with the Kibler! Very high quality and much easier to build as the parts are so precisely fitted due to the CNC production methods. I'll bet others will echo my sentiment.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

Personally if I am using a precarved stock I get it from Pecatonica. They have a larger selection of styles and I prefer to do my own lock inlet, just my preference. Although I have never used one I have seen Chambers kits. There is some work to do fitting parts and finishing but they are top quality kits with a better variety of styles. From what I have heard the Kibler kits are top quality and most of the work is done for you. If you like one of the now 3 styles he offers your in good shape.

 

[hanshi]

Remember that since you want to do more of the work than on a Kibler, you have the option of making modest changes on the rifle you build. In other words you'll have a one-of-a-kind customized rifle when finished.

 

[user 34300]

Pecatonica SMR kit is $300 cheaper than Kibler kit. What does Kibler provide for the $300 extra?

More than $1000 in extra value. Every aspect of the Kibler is higher quality. The stock has excellent architecture. No thick ramrod webs or unusable lock inlets. The metal parts fit the wood as you get it with zero gaps. The difference is like a Holland and Holland double vs a Stevens double barrel shotgun as far a general quality. The main drawback with Kibler is the lack of selection.

I am not bashing Pecatonica or anyone else. They are a different thing. They make parts sets from which you may be able to make a rifle, may is the key word. When you buy a precarve stock you are gambling on it being usable. Most have substandard architecture. Most of the time I find that they are crudely done and finding centerlines and reference angles elusive. I have to guess and take averages. If you know what you are doing, making a really nice rifle involves a lot of "figuring". BTW, never ever get a precarve with the lock inlet done for you. Sometimes you figure out that the precarve is junk and if you have cut on it you are SOL.

Brass and steel furniture castings? Kibler does a great job. He uses only soft brass. His castings are excellent and require minimal clean up. Some suppliers send brittle bronze parts instead of the correct malleable brass. Many send rough cast junkie parts.

When you get a mass market cast part lock, it will probably need a lot of help to be usable. I have found exactly zero cast part price point locks to be OK for me as delivered. IT will never approach the CNC Kibler locks in build quality, function, or reliability.

Chambers has an excellent reputation and are a step above the part set bundlers.

As far as the effort to assemble the rifle, the Kibler kits assemble easily and quickly. The others' parts sets are much more time consuming and frustrating. For instance I recently completed a parts set of a pre-carved stock and pile of castings in about 60 hours over a month's time. I can assemble a Kibler in one day. Finishing takes three days due to dry time and rust time. The Kibler rifle is then worth much more than I paid for the kit.

I guess the short answer is that it depends on your skill level and how you value you time.

 

[Texas Gil]

More than $1000 in extra value. Every aspect of the Kibler is higher quality. The stock has excellent architecture. No thick ramrod webs or unusable lock inlets. The metal parts fit the wood as you get it with zero gaps. The difference is like a Holland and Holland double vs a Stevens double barrel shotgun as far a general quality. The main drawback with Kibler is the lack of selection.

I am not bashing Pecatonica or anyone else. They are a different thing. They make parts sets from which you may be able to make a rifle, may is the key word. When you buy a precarve stock you are gambling on it being usable. Most have substandard architecture. Most of the time I find that they are crudely done and finding centerlines and reference angles elusive. I have to guess and take averages. If you know what you are doing, making a really nice rifle involves a lot of "figuring". BTW, never ever get a precarve with the lock inlet done for you. Sometimes you figure out that the precarve is junk and if you have cut on it you are SOL.

Brass and steel furniture castings? Kibler does a great job. He uses only soft brass. His castings are excellent and require minimal clean up. Some suppliers send brittle bronze parts instead of the correct malleable brass. Many send rough cast junkie parts.

When you get a mass market cast part lock, it will probably need a lot of help to be usable. I have found exactly zero cast part price point locks to be OK for me as delivered. IT will never approach the CNC Kibler locks in build quality, function, or reliability.

Chambers has an excellent reputation and are a step above the part set bundlers.

As far as the effort to assemble the rifle, the Kibler kits assemble easily and quickly. The others' parts sets are much more time consuming and frustrating. For instance I recently completed a parts set of a pre-carved stock and pile of castings in about 60 hours over a month's time. I can assemble a Kibler in one day. Finishing takes three days due to dry time and rust time. The Kibler rifle is then worth much more than I paid for the kit.

I guess the short answer is that it depends on your skill level and how you value you time.

Thanks for the advice. I've come to understand what you say is correct. I will be buying a Kibler. Leaning towards the Woodsrunner because of the shorter barrel and Kibler reviews. I just don't want to deal with issues. I need for the parts to fit. Also, I want a rifle that has top quality everything that I will be proud to own!