Kibler kits

[bigted]

So still teasing myself with YouTube videos on the Kibler kits

Kinda surprised this morning when I noticed that the touch hole/pan relationship is pretty deep in the pan on a couple video's.

Instead of the sunset style I try for ... at least these two seem to have the touch hole at or near the bottom of the pan.

Is this observation common on these kits or is it a camera angle thing?

 

[Phil Coffins]

The shape of the pan is a spoon shape and is not deep near the barrel. That give the allusion of being low, look at the top line of the lock plate.

 

[Art Caputo]

My two Colonial barrels, and two of my buddies Colonials are all right at the sunset position. Very fast ignition!

 

[TDM]

As said above by @Phil Coffins and @Art Caputo. My Kibler lock is wicked fast, noticeably faster than my others.

 

[Troopertree]

I am no expert on the relative position of pan to touch hole. I have a Kibler Mtn rifle. The last shoot was foggy with at times a light drizzle. I shoot approximately 21round balls down range. I wipe out my pan and load use 50 grns 3f in a 45 cal. I was using MOS and water to lube patch. The point is I had no misfire, delayed fire or flash in the the pan. There are 2 other Kibler Mtn Rifles in the group with zero problems. I don't know much other than it works great. Just my 2 cents worth ( worth nothing in today's economy but).

Troopertree

 

[bigted]

Thanks fella's. I do know that those Kiblers have a great reputation. Not casting doubts just observed this AM what looked like an awful low position. Had not taken in consideration that the floor of the pan slopes upward toward the touch hole

 

[James Kibler]

This notion that the touch hole should be at the sunset position is total nonsense. This has been disproven by Larry Pletcher and his computerized touch hole ignition timing tests. There was no huge difference between low in the pan and higher. I do recall seeing that lower in the pan was maybe 10% faster ignition time on average. Also when you look at originals the hole is generally low in the pan. Point being, at some time this myth got started and these are slow to die. Ignition is very good where we place our touch holes. No need to worry or over think things.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Jedidiah]

This notion that the touch hole should be at the sunset position is total nonsense. This has been disproven by Larry Pletcher and his computerized touch hole ignition timing tests. There was no huge difference between low in the pan and higher. I do recall seeing that lower in the pan was maybe 10% faster ignition time on average. Also when you look at originals the hole is generally low in the pan. Point being, at some time this myth got started and these are slow to die. Ignition is very good where we place our touch holes. No need to worry or over think things.

Thanks,
Jim

great info, thanks, What position would you consider this? Sunset? High ,Low Or something else? Iam trying to learn and understand the positioning! Thanks

 

[PathfinderNC]

I assembled a TC “Hawken” kit for my neighbor last month. (The kit was his brother’s, from 1982, still with the receipt).
The touch hole was so high it was almost above the top of the frizzen cover! Darn thing shoots great without a single misfire. Funny how some things work so well when you don’t expect them to

 

[Jedidiah]

I assembled a TC “Hawken” kit for my neighbor last month. (The kit was his brother’s, from 1982 with the receipt).
The touch hole was so high it was almost above the top of the frizzen cover! Darn thing shoots great without a single misfire. Funny how some things work so well when you don’t expect them to

That was my concern. The frizzen covers the hole but not by alot!

 

[bigted]

Thank you Jim for weighing in on this. Again did not intend any doubts on your fine kits. Just noted something that seems to fly in the face of modern understanding and wanted to educate myself on the possibility of going down a road that in fact holds no water.

On a couple TC conversions back to flint, I have noticed that the one where the touch hole is slightly forward of the pan center compared with the one that I plugged the old percussion hole and redrilled a new position at the sunset point ... both seem to fire at the same speed.

Just an eager student of the magic of flintlocks.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

If it makes any difference, I put my touch holes in the sunset position. The edge of the frizzen covers the hole. I did this so the pan powder can't cover the hole when your hunting. In my 43 years of shooting flintlock I found d slow ignition when the powder covers the hole, with a higher hole you don't have to worry about how you carry the gun. I have always gotten super fast ignition. Fast ignition has always been a thing for me as I used to be an avid bird hunter and skeet shooter.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

BTW, I'm very familiar with Pletchers tests, but there is a difference with computer testing results and actual shooting in the field.

 

[bigted]

Gotta say, whatever Jim is doing ... seems to be a smashing success.

 

[david w]

My Kibler SMR is fast, fast, fast. I believe Jim Kibler knows what he's doing!

 

[david w]

BTW, I'm very familiar with Pletchers tests, but there is a difference with computer testing results and actual shooting in the field.

Whatever happens in the field is your own responsibility, not Pletcher's tests.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Whatever happens in the field is your own responsibility, not Pletcher's tests.

I think you missed my point

 

[david w]

I think you missed my point

What is your point?

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

What is your point?

Tests conducted in controlled environments with controlled parameters will give vastly different results than actual field use where there are no controls on environments or parameters.

 

[Jedidiah]

Tests conducted in controlled environments with controlled parameters will give vastly different results than actual field use where there are no controls on environments or parameters.

I agree. However, the tests do provide a basis for data and are not without their usefulness. The problem with field testing is all the variables can never be accounted for, because each hour/day they change. That makes it difficult to say what works consistently because it is all anecdotal, ie based on what happened that day, with that load, under those conditions, with that ML, all of which can change each hour/day.