Kibler Hawken update,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My thing is this, then I'm out. We all should be grateful and supportive of what they are doing for OUR hobby. He may not produce what YOU want or how YOU would do it. But what he is doing and has done has been nothing but a long awaited breath of fresh air to OUR hobby. Heck all of his offerings are not MY cup of tea either but they are for someone else. They are well thought out, researched and fit the period and part. He has also solely made it possible for someone LIKE ME (and I'm sure the majority ARE) who is working on a meager budget and in a 10' x 10' hobby shed can achieve a level of rifle I could not have in the past. These things can be done on the kitchen table for crying out loud. They are leaps and bounds better than the guns I cut my teeth on, and yet those were scoffed at too, never mind that 180lb monster in my avatar. Those guns are out of here, now the Kibler rifles will become family heirlooms.

Maybe he should have made it his own "Model" Left the "Hawken" Moniker off of it and called it the Buckeye Mountain Special or some such! THEN what would we have squabbled about?
 
Because it is being offered as a Hawken and the very existence of such has been questioned enough and contributed to SO MUCH controversy that the firestorm is clearly predictable. I can't imagine why they were expecting a halfstock flintlock when he has made it clear from the very start that he was bringing out a Hawken. 1850 ish at that.
Amen, for me there's something freakish about a halfstock Hawken Flintlock. I do understand though that some folks love fantasy pieces and have the right to their desires. If somebody wants one, it's not rocket science to convert one from a capper. This would probably be better than trying to get Kibler to provide one for what I have to believe would be an extremely limited market.
 
Back to the hooked/patent breech subject, it's my understanding that the patent breech includes the snail around the nipple that is attached to a breech plug that stays with the barrel when the barrel is removed from the stock. It does have the powder chamber in the plug as mentioned and so does the hooked breech. It's also true as mentioned that the TC breech, and the original Hawken breeches, are a combination of both the hooked and patent type. At least that's the way I understand it. Here's a photo of a patent breech from L&R:
 

Attachments

  • 1738095179414.png
    1738095179414.png
    121.2 KB
Last edited:
I do, that's why I pointed out the Carson Hawken as a great starting point. The highest original evolution of a Rocky Mountain rifle. All the design work is already done. Never meant to be derogatory or offensive.
Sorry, I must have been confused. I thought you were suggesting that the guard, entry pipe finials etc. weren't right.
 
Jim,
The originals had a pronounced swell in the middle of the buttstock looking down from the top. It's very noticeable in photographs. Will yours have that? Most of the "Hawken" kits and rifles I've seen had straight sided stocks.

I know, small detail but I was curious.
 
Jim,
The originals had a pronounced swell in the middle of the buttstock looking down from the top. It's very noticeable in photographs. Will yours have that? Most of the "Hawken" kits and rifles I've seen had straight sided stocks.

I know, small detail but I was curious.
I know exactly what you are talking about. No, ours won't have this as I REALLY dislike it! It's almost as though the barrel is quite large which in turn pushes the size of the stock through the wrist and then as the very narrow buttplate is approached it has to dive in to meet it.
 
Amen, for me there's something freakish about a halfstock Hawken Flintlock. I do understand though that some folks love fantasy pieces and have the right to their desires. If somebody wants one, it's not rocket science to convert one from a capper. This would probably be better than trying to get Kibler to provide one for what I have to believe would be an extremely limited market.

Respectfully, it seems Jim’s latest offering departs significantly enough from the traditional Hawken design that the “Hawken rifle” designation feels misplaced. Wouldn’t it be more fitting to call it a plains rifle or sporting rifle, as others have suggested? As long as the Hawken moniker is attached, it strikes me as more of a fantasy piece than an authentic representation of the original design. 🤷‍♂️
 
Respectfully, it seems Jim’s latest offering departs significantly enough from the traditional Hawken design that the “Hawken rifle” designation feels misplaced. Wouldn’t it be more fitting to call it a plains rifle or sporting rifle, as others have suggested? As long as the Hawken moniker is attached, it strikes me as more of a fantasy piece than an authentic representation of the original design. 🤷‍♂️
The Hawken design? If no two original Hawkens were the same how can there be a definitive design?
 
The Hawken design? If no two original Hawkens were the same how can there be a definitive design?
While it’s true that no two original Hawkens were identical, there were distinctive features that defined them and made them immediately recognizable as Hawken rifles. These common characteristics set them apart from other firearms of the era. That said, Jim has already made it clear that he plans to incorporate a number of design concessions in order to make the rifle more appealing to a broader audience. As was just recently mentioned, he plans to do away with the swell in the middle of the stock which is present on original rifles.
 
Why must everything be the same? It is 200 years later. "Jim, sorry, can't buy your offering because you used electricity during the manufacturing process.". Really???

That might as well be what some of you are saying. Don't like it, don't buy it. And enough pontificating and self righteousness. People wonder why this country can't just get along....
 
Respectfully, it seems Jim’s latest offering departs significantly enough from the traditional Hawken design that the “Hawken rifle” designation feels misplaced. Wouldn’t it be more fitting to call it a plains rifle or sporting rifle, as others have suggested? As long as the Hawken moniker is attached, it strikes me as more of a fantasy piece than an authentic representation of the original design. 🤷‍♂️
Respectfully…if you’ve ever built a gun from a plank of wood,(I have by the way) did the research, gathered the appropriate parts and began the layout and execution…the last thing I’m gonna do is incorporate all the perceived aesthetic and ergonomic flaws of the original…Jim is absolutely correct in adjusting these minute subtle “perceived flaws” towards a better product.

There are aesthetically and artistically pleasing Hawken rifles…way fewer than the majority of the over weight, skinny wristed “future crowbar” guns…we all have artistic license to avoid ugly when we can…especially Jim Kibler.
 
Jim probably could have saved himself a lot of static if he'd called it the "Kibler High Plains Rifle" or the "Kibler rocky Mountain Fur Trade Rifle". 🤣

I know this comment was likely made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there’s a lot of truth to it! At what point does a modified Hawken-style rifle lose the right to be called a Hawken rifle? How far can you alter it before it fails to be an accurate representation of what it was initially intended to be?

Case in point: T/C’s “Hawken”. 😜
 


Write your reply...

Latest posts

Back
Top