Kit vs scratch

[elarges]

Hi all
I have a question that I'm sure has been covered before:
I am going to be a first-time builder. Should I start with a kit or pick up the separate pieces and go from scratch?
I am moderately handy in the wood shop and modestly artistic. After pricing the kits vs the individual parts, it seems close enough in price to not be much of a difference.
Thoughts from you guys that might be more seasoned??
Thanks a ton!
Eric

 

[simonbeans]

www.jimkibler.net

 

[Black Hand]

A high-quality kit tends to keep the proportions, features and lines where they should be for a beginner. Kits from Chambers (flintlocks.com) are excellent.

I would suggest a scratch build IF (and only if) you have spent time studying the proportions/features of existing guns and can keep things in their proper place.

As I have no idea what your definition of moderate skill would be, your best bet is a kit.

 

[rich pierce]

Kits offer special challenges. Some kits like Chambers keep enough extra wood to allow some customization such as length and shape of cheek piece, etc. Newbs can think such kits are at final shape. That results in chubby guns.

A major challenge in kits is getting the lock, touchhole, and breech all lined up. Building from scratch it's easier.

I recommend an inexpensive, very plain kit for the first build. There's a lot to be learned even with something simple. It's easy to take a $900 or more kit and turn it into a $600 gun.

 

[Col. Batguano]

One thing that is particularly valuable to use when building your first few builds, is another similar gun to hold in your hands. For the "now what is it I like and dislike about this gun" moments that seem to come up at many stages. It could be a half stock or full stock. They all have barrels, ram rods, lock panels, butt plates, and some have patch boxes, inlays, and toe plates, along with other embellishment. They differ in other respects, but will give you a "bird in the hand" to look at and hold while performing certain tasks that the books and pictures do not. Where they differ is in their architecture, but the basics are the same. If you don't already have one, see if you can visit some place that has some, or maybe you can borrow one from a friend for the duration of your build.

Most people start out with the "sand and assemble" kits from Lyman, CVA etc. While a good place to start, they don't teach you a lot about building. A next step is a parts' set. Some have locks inlet, and some do not. One advantage to them is that the basic shape of the gun is already pretty much done for you. The disadvantage is that you have to choose from what is available, but there is a pretty wide selection. Most do not give you enough extra wood to do very much alteration regarding stock shape, cast off, twist, or comb height and shape, and they usually come with pretty thick webs, but there is a lot of wood that will still need to come off none the less. The parts in them are pretty generic too, so most of them will need some alteration to fit the exact model or gun you are looking to create. Just remember to make the parts fit the gun (regarding style and location) rather than the other way around.

The last step is deciding what gun you want to build, and then go shopping for the appropriate parts. You may or may not choose to have someone else inlet the barrel for you for about $90 last I checked. Dave Keck (and probably others) will do it if you supply him your barrel and your own wood. When you go that route, that gives you the most flexibility to create what ever you want, and if parts are not available from the well known supply houses, you can always make them. Most first timers choose not to make their own major parts that require special equipment or advanced skills, (barrel, lock, trigger guard, butt plate etc.) but it's been done before. Just remember that the more work you leave for yourself to do, the more places there are to make a mistake.

Good luck. You'll enjoy it what ever you decide to do. Just remember--it's a hobby, not a job. Enjoy it for what it is, and be glad for what it is not.

 

[Zonie]

As you probably know, there are Kits built by the major manufactures like Pedersoli or imported by the folks at Traditions and Lymans.

These are basically factory guns that were left in a semi-finished condition.
Making one of these is basically sanding, a little fitting and applying the finish to the stock and the barrel.
Figure maybe 20-50 hours if you take your time.

Then, there are the "kits" offered by places like Chambers, Pecatonica River, Track of the Wolf etc.

These are basically a semi-roughed out stock with the barrel channel cut and the ramrod hole drilled. They leave a lot of wood everywhere so there is a lot of shaping to do.

Although they offer to have the lock mortise cut, it usually needs a bit of adjustment to fit the lock.
None of the screw holes are drilled or tapped or even located for you so you'll have to layout their locations.

Basically, the "kit" consists of a box of rough castings and semi-finished parts. The lock and set triggers are all that is really finished and even these will need to be worked on.

The advantage of these "kits" is you have a good start on getting the proper proportions for the stock although a lot of adjustment is going to be needed to make it into a graceful gun.

Figure spending at least 120 hours and more often than not 160 hours to end up with a good gun.

Then, there's the "scratch built" gun you mentioned.

These need all the work of the "kits" I just mentioned plus they need to be carefully layed out and cut/rasped/ chisled/sanded and shaped plus difficult tasks like cutting the barrel channel and drilling the ramrod hole are needed.

To many people, muzzleloading longrifles all look alike but this is far from the truth.

Without a good example on hand or at least a very good pattern to work to, getting a well shaped stock is a very challenging task.

I would figure it would take at least 180-250 hours to end up with a presentable gun, if your lucky.

 

[simonbeans]

Then, there are the "kits" offered by places like Chambers, Pecatonica River, Track of the Wolf etc.

These are basically a semi-roughed out stock with the barrel channel cut and the ramrod hole drilled. They leave a lot of wood everywhere so there is a lot of shaping to do.

"Although they offer to have the lock mortise cut, it usually needs a bit of adjustment to fit the lock.
None of the screw holes are drilled or tapped or even located for you so you'll have to layout their locations.

Basically, the "kit" consists of a box of rough castings and semi-finished parts. The lock and set triggers are all that is really finished and even these will need to be worked on."

Not Jim Kibler's Kit. I have built from "scratch" and from aforementioned "Kits", Kibler's is the easiest and best. VERY LITTLE work needs to be done, and it is historically, albeit 19th century, correct.

 

[Zonie]

I have never built or even seen one of Jim Kibler's kits or rifles but I don't doubt what you say.

On the other hand, it sounds like his kits are a bit like Chambers kits.

That is, in my opinion, perhaps too much is done.

I know Chambers goes so far as to not only select the sideplate but they cut the mortise for it.

That's fine if you like what he has decided you will use but it can cause problems for builders like me who are making a rifle like one that I have found photos of.

They almost never have the same sideplate or butt plate or patchbox or trigger guard as the one selected by the company that's supplying the kit.

Like I say, having the supplier decide what your rifle is going to have can cause people like me some real problems.
For a first time builder, it does have some advantages though.

 

[Black Hand]

If I remember well about Chamber's kits, you can request the lock mortise and sideplate inlet not be cut. Might be a question worth asking...

 

[Don Steele]

Eric,
Here's some observations made recently from watching two of my friends go through the process of building a rifle from a Jim Kibler kit.
One of these fellows is an experienced builder. He found several things in the Kibler kit that needed "fine work" with hand tools, but overall thought it a great way for a rank amateur to enjoy building his own rifle. With the Kibler kit, enough has been done, with enough precision that it is difficult (though not impossible)to totally screw up an expensive part of the build.
OTOH: The other fellow had never built a rifle before...ZERO experience. He had the more experienced builder to provide local guidance, but still did all the work himself. In HIS opinion..the Kibler kit required a LOT more fitting and general hand work than he thought he was getting into.
All that said however...both of these fellows have ended up with very nice rifles.
As to quality...Jim Kibler has put together the best parts in his kits so that as long as you don't just go in and BREAK things...you'll very likely end up with a good shooter. How "pretty" it will be is going to depend on your knowledge and ability to do fine wood and metal finish work.
In the 2 examples I mentioned above...one of those rifles came out looking gorgeous...like it was a brand spanking new production from a fine early 19th century shop. The other came out looking like it was "Grandpa's rifle"...handed down a few generations, and well used, but not abused. (Both shoot just fine btw)
At the present time, Kibler only offers the single style of his special kit. He says there will be a second style coming...but there's no date on that offering yet, nor is there a specific style or caliber(s)yet determined.

 

[Vaino]

Awhile back I asked Chambers if the lock and sideplate inlets could be omitted and he said yes but it would void the warranty and the precarve would be "nonreturnable".

Whether one chooses to build from a blank, parts set or a factory sand, finish and assemble kit, depends on the purpose of the build. Does the builder just want a MLer or does he/she want to learn how to build and how much and how quickly does he/she want to learn.

No doubt the biggest learning curve is to start w/ a blank and if the builder is able to design the stock from scratch and is able skillwise to complete the MLer, then that's the best way to learn...but judging from the MLers displayed on TOW's consignment sales, not many beginners can pull this off.

Next in complexity would be the various parts sets and although the basic stock design is there, some wood remains to be removed and the many partial inlets need some work to fit the parts. The various holes have to be laid out and drilled for the bbl lugs, RR pipes and the lock requires drilling and tapping. These parts sets still require know how and skill to complete and many hours of work. Of the many parts sets, the Chambers is the most refined seeing all the dovetails except that for the rear sight are done and his brass is investment cast and needs a minimum of finishing....some of the other parts sets contain sand cast parts which require a lot more work.

Jim Kibler's parts sets are in between the above parts sets and the factory sand, finish and assemble kits. Presently he has only one style.

Another choice if one just wants a MLer is the "in the white" guns.

So...what's the purpose of the build?.......Fred

 

[BigBoreBLR]

Take a look at yourself well.

We all want awesome stuff. But will we put the time in. Will the build stop at the difficult part and collect dust for a year.

What's your project completion batting average.

Do you want a nice gun or two, or want a long term interest in making numerous guns.

You could jazz up an existing gun to warm up to the hobby too. Refit a new lock or trigger, refinish, or carve some decoration on a gun.


If you just want a gun or two, get a well completed kit. Tip curtis, chambers, or the big guys have them too.

 

[Eric Krewson]

I have done two plank builds, one from a precarve, one TC Hawken kit, and one TC Renegade from random parts with an L&R lock upgrade.

For me the plank builds with the barrel inletted and ramrod hole drilled by someone else was the easiest. I buy the full sized plans for reference before I start.

My precarve was poorly done and it took a lot of time to straighten out the routers goof ups.

One thing about the assembly kits like the TC, if you take off the extra wood and shape everything perfectly for looks and wood to metal fit it can be an involved project. I can spent two weeks (a few hours a day) completing one of these projects.

 

[Snakebite]

I believe the Kibler kits are great from what I've seen and heard, I'm just hoping he comes out with a different model. Lancaster, York, something along those lines.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I built two production kits and then stopped at Dixon's and bought a used barrel and new cheap Spanish flintlock from somewhere else and took a three foot plank of plain maple and built a gun, making the rest of the parts from odds and ends from the junk box. I had a TC Hawken kit, a CVA kentucky pistol kit under my belt and Dixon's book on building muzzle loaders. I inlet the stock, and lock myself drilled the ram rod hole myself and made the trigger guard, trigger, ram rod thimble and butt plate from pieces of strap steel. I even filed the sights out of pieces of brass. I was looking only for a purely light weight utilitarian hunting rifle. It came out a little clunky in the butt stock, but served its purpose well and at some point I gave it to my brother who still shoots it.

I was too green to follow a style or school. But I did take $40 dollars in parts (then) and turned out a reliable gun. As a learning experience it was great. I have since built several other more traditional long rifles. But I think that first plank taught me a great deal that I would have missed had I gone straight to a more expensive kit. As I said in the past and someone already said above. It is easy to turn $1,000 in parts into a $300.00 gun.

 

[jbwilliams3]

He has stated on the American Longrifle Forum that he was considering an early gun for his next kit. The stocks are shaped with a programed CNC machine so they are as precise as possible meaning very precious little inletting and shaping is necessary. They are essentially in the white but are historically accurate to boot.

Two things are astonishing to me about his kits: 1) that Jim Kibler of all people has delved into this business ”“ he, after all, a phenomenal custom maker. It does make some sense in that he has an engineering background. And 2) the investment in time and money to create what he is creating in these kits is substantial. We shouldn’t take for granted that a whole line of various gun profiles will be easily attainable in the near future. Hopefully, that’s the case, but it is not an easy undertaking. That said, I’m excited to see the next gun he offers in kit form, especially since he’s said it would be early.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

OT slightly. The advances in cnc machinery is mind boggling. A few months ago, I went to a open house at Thaddeus Stevens College Industrial arts wood shop.

1.the CNC laser machine was incredible. Scan in a photo of 4 sides of a house. run it through a program, then put a sheet of 2x4 ft 1/8 inch plywood into the machine and hit start. The end result was a n extremely detailed cut out wooden model of the house. Right down to the shingles on the roof and the curtains hanging in the windows. each brick discernible in the walls.

2. The had a CNC wood lathe. Mount the piece of wood and program the shape. The lathe turned the piece to within a thousandth or two and shut it self off. (And the instructor said this model was 15 yr old tech)

3. A three dimensional cnc router that cut out three dimensional copies of nearly anything from wood or plastic. (Something like $38,000 a few years ago)

Which gets me to the subject of the thread. These kinds of machines could eventually carve stocks and engrave metal to the point of making identical copies of originals so exact that no real inletting is necessary just final sanding and finishing. .. The major difference may be just the wood grain.

 

[Micah Clark]

One of the best things I ever did, and have been blessed to have the opportunity . . . was to find a "coach" who had built about 20 rifles, who walked me through building my kit every step of the way.

I am only on my second build, and am still working with him . . . on my second, we went with Jim Chambers, which he had used the most and viewed as the best kit. I agree that they are very good . . .HOWEVER . . . other makers have some strengths that are not Chambers' strength.

My first kit was a TVM . . . they had more model options than Chambers, and seemed more cost efficient. . . and they are, except that time is money and Chambers shapes his stocks much more than most other kits and inlets more parts . . or nearly inlets them. . so I think the Chambers kit will go quicker and easier in many ways.

Some people knock TVM, however, I have come to very much appreciate TVM's strengths. Their lock and barrel inlet on my Late Lancaster were truly excellent . . . better than my current Chambers' kit. . and those two items are critically important. They also glass bedded around the breech plug for strength. . a very smart move. They deserve their place in any kit builder's consideration in my view, even though they shape the stock less than Chambers, and one needs to know how to make stocks look "thin" . . . but that's not too hard.

 

[Elnathan]

Some people knock TVM, however, I have come to very much appreciate TVM's strengths. Their lock and barrel inlet on my Late Lancaster were truly excellent . . . better than my current Chambers' kit. . and those two items are critically important. They also glass bedded around the breech plug for strength. . a very smart move. They deserve their place in any kit builder's consideration in my view, even though they shape the stock less than Chambers, and one needs to know how to make stocks look "thin" . . . but that's not too hard.

Unless they shape their kit stocks differently than they do their finished guns, getting the stock thin will involve re-inletting the barrel deeper and somehow moving the lock inlet to match. That sort of makes the quality of inletting of the lock and barrel mortise kind of irrelevent...

Getting the gap between the barrel inlet and the ramrod hole is pretty important to the overall architecture (I know this because I screwed it up on mine...) TVM doesn't seem to be able to get that right.

Point being that there are other issues to be considered beyond how much wood still has to be removed.

 

[Elnathan]

Oh, and I went straight from a CVA snap-together-and-sand kit to a full-blown scratch-build. Reasonably successfully. I had Jim Chambers coaching me through it, though, which was a big factor.

If you have someone to teach you, scratch-building is an option.