My New .50 cal Ken Netting Flintlock Pistol (#675) – A Real Stunner, but POI Has Me Stumped!

[D Yager]

I wouldn't file the end of the barrel, Any changes to the crown might blow your accuracy out the door. I know Sam Fadala played around with filing the barrel on a smooth bore and his results were less than satisfactory. A rifled barrel is a little different animal. Track has some solder on front sights for trade guns you might be able to make work.

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

Can you take a sight like this one made for a round barrel and hammer the base flat and solder it on?

I had seen that on Track’s site and was wondering the same thing. I may just have to add one of those to my cart along with a couple of other front sights when I go to place my order. I figure I can always file or cut the base off.

 

[Smokerr]

Pardon my ignorance, but is Ken Netting making those guns currently? Not ;sure if brand new means he is, or you just got it

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

Pardon my ignorance, but is Ken Netting making those guns currently? Not ;sure if brand new means he is, or you just got it

I’ve heard rumors that Ken is no longer taking orders—not surprising, given he’s been at it for a long time. Then again, folks have been saying he’s retiring for years, yet #675 rolled out in November. Maybe he’s just building at his own pace now, picking projects that interest him.

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

1) Have you tried adjusting your charge? That can move the point of impact.

2) Filing the end of the muzzle - If the late Paul Valdilligham (sp?), who used to be VERY active on here, was still alive, he would tell you to CAREFULLY shave off the muzzle, more off the top than the bottom, whereas she is hitting 'high'. That puts more gas to the 'top' of the ball to lower's it trajectory.

To raise the impact, you'd file some off the bottom of the muzzle from 4 to 8 o'clock, with the intent to have gas below the charge exit the muzzle first, thereby adding more lift to the charge.

To lower the impact, you'd file some off the top of the muzzle from 4 to 8 o'clock, with the intent to have gas above the charge exit the muzzle first, thereby pushing the charge down.

Now with that all said ... even though I've been on here for 20+ years ... BEWARE that I don't ever recall someome doing it with solid roundball load, but it does work for shot patterns, as @Britsmoothy does it. In this post here, someone claims that they successfully moved their point of impact to be 'dead on' by barely filing the end of the barrels.

Here's that post! https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/raising-pattern.105997

3) Project to Test! - Hmmmmmm, I have a shootable, but junkie 69-cal smoothbore barrel, in a stock with a lock, just lying around. I'll PM Message @B P Maniac Shooter to see if he'd test this 'filing the muzzle' hypothesis with roundball loads, if I send him the parts gun. I'll have to fashion a trigger, but that's no biggie.

As mentioned in my initial post, I’ve already experimented with charge adjustments, ranging from as low as 10 grains up to the pistol’s upper limit of around 50 grains (in five grain increments). The shifts in point of impact were minimal at best.

The idea of filing the muzzle is certainly interesting, but that feels like a pretty extreme step to take this early in the process. I’d like to exhaust other options before considering something that irreversible.

I’m convinced that the real solution is replacing the front sight with a significantly taller one. While adjusting velocity can shift the point of impact to some extent, there’s a limit to how much it can compensate. Given how high the pistol is shooting, a taller front sight would naturally bring the muzzle down, providing a more consistent and reliable fix without relying on fine-tuning the powder charge. It’s a simple, proven solution that directly addresses the issue rather than trying to work around it. At least that’s the theory…

 

[nick_1]

I never worry too much about precision powder charge. Once I get the sights dialed anything give or take 5 grains is going to be more accurate than I am.

 

[Smokerr]

I’ve heard rumors that Ken is no longer taking orders—not surprising, given he’s been at it for a long time. Then again, folks have been saying he’s retiring for years, yet #675 rolled out in November. Maybe he’s just building at his own pace now, picking projects that interest him.

Can you contact him and get a taller front sight? Or send it to D Yager (his turnover time is shorter than Mike though I would never want to take needed business away from Mike or D Yager).

 

[XVIIc Wheelock]

Hey everyone,

I just got my new .50 cal Ken Netting flintlock pistol, and while it’s an absolute beauty—number 675 for Ken—it’s also giving me some head-scratchers on the accuracy front.

I’ve taken it out a couple of times now and noticed that I’m consistently hitting at least 12 inches high at 25 yards. I started with the standard load of about 25 grains and experimented by dialing down to 10 grains and cranking up to 50 grains, but none of that made any appreciable difference in my point of impact.

For starters, I began with .490 balls paired with Ox-Yoke .010 patches, then tried switching to .018 pillow ticking using the same ball size. I even used a slightly heavier ball (.495) with .005 patches (I couldn’t go any thicker without needing a mallet to work it down the barrel) which dropped the point of impact by an inch or so—barely enough to matter.

I’ve attempted to raise the POA by filing down the rear sight, but I’m quickly running out of real estate there, and my alterations to it have resulted in negligible changes in the right direction.

At this point, I’m beginning to think the culprit might be the front sight. It seems awfully short (maybe around 1/8 inch), which is odd since every other traditional muzzleloader I’ve owned has a tendency to shoot low at any given distance and has required a fair amount of filing of the front sight.

Has anyone else encountered a similar issue with a Ken Netting or any other flintlock pistol? I’m considering replacing or modifying the front sight (it’s silver soldered on), but I’ve having a difficult time finding replacement sights (those without a base for a dovetail) on any of the various muzzleloading supply sites. Should I fashion one out of some sheet brass?

Looking forward to your thoughts and advice!

If you just purchased it from the maker, I'd contact him and ask to send the gun back in order to install a taller front sight. I don't think the maker, with his very positive reputation would walk away. It should not take him 20 minutes, if that long to replace the front sight.

 

[XVIIc Wheelock]

Here is where Flintlock Fellow purchased his pistol....same number 675 sold 12/9/2024. Or he purchased it recently from that buyer on 12/9/24? Either way it is a beautiful pistol !
https://www.longrifle.com/artisans-...s/ken-netting-kentucky-pistol-50-caliber-675/

EDIT: Looks like he purchased it from this fellow who purchased it from the above auction. No matter, again a beautiful pistol to be very proud of! Perhaps still contact the maker as in post #28:
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/reduced-50-cal-ken-netting-kentucky-pistol-675.188703/

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

https://www.longrifle.com/artisans-...s/ken-netting-kentucky-pistol-50-caliber-675/

EDIT: Looks like he purchased it from this fellow who purchased it from the above auction. No matter, again a beautiful pistol to be very proud of! Perhaps still contact the maker as in post #28:
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/reduced-50-cal-ken-netting-kentucky-pistol-675.188703/

The fella’ I purchased it from on the forum (Andy Wright) is the same individual who was selling it on the CLA’s website. He claimed to have gotten it directly from Ken, purportedly never got around to shooting it, and then sold it to me.

I suppose I could reach out to Ken and have him install another front sight, but I’d feel kind of silly doing that… it’s within my capabilities. I picked up some of that silver bearing solder paste and it should make short work of things.

 

[Relic shooter]

Hey everyone,

I just got my new .50 cal Ken Netting flintlock pistol, and while it’s an absolute beauty—number 675 for Ken—it’s also giving me some head-scratchers on the accuracy front.

I’ve taken it out a couple of times now and noticed that I’m consistently hitting at least 12 inches high at 25 yards. I started with the standard load of about 25 grains and experimented by dialing down to 10 grains and cranking up to 50 grains, but none of that made any appreciable difference in my point of impact.

For starters, I began with .490 balls paired with Ox-Yoke .010 patches, then tried switching to .018 pillow ticking using the same ball size. I even used a slightly heavier ball (.495) with .005 patches (I couldn’t go any thicker without needing a mallet to work it down the barrel) which dropped the point of impact by an inch or so—barely enough to matter.

I’ve attempted to raise the POA by filing down the rear sight, but I’m quickly running out of real estate there, and my alterations to it have resulted in negligible changes in the right direction.

At this point, I’m beginning to think the culprit might be the front sight. It seems awfully short (maybe around 1/8 inch), which is odd since every other traditional muzzleloader I’ve owned has a tendency to shoot low at any given distance and has required a fair amount of filing of the front sight.

Has anyone else encountered a similar issue with a Ken Netting or any other flintlock pistol? I’m considering replacing or modifying the front sight (it’s silver soldered on), but I’ve having a difficult time finding replacement sights (those without a base for a dovetail) on any of the various muzzleloading supply sites. Should I fashion one out of some sheet brass?

Looking forward to your thoughts and advice!

Beautifully crafted pistol !!

Hey everyone,

I just got my new .50 cal Ken Netting flintlock pistol, and while it’s an absolute beauty—number 675 for Ken—it’s also giving me some head-scratchers on the accuracy front.

I’ve taken it out a couple of times now and noticed that I’m consistently hitting at least 12 inches high at 25 yards. I started with the standard load of about 25 grains and experimented by dialing down to 10 grains and cranking up to 50 grains, but none of that made any appreciable difference in my point of impact.

For starters, I began with .490 balls paired with Ox-Yoke .010 patches, then tried switching to .018 pillow ticking using the same ball size. I even used a slightly heavier ball (.495) with .005 patches (I couldn’t go any thicker without needing a mallet to work it down the barrel) which dropped the point of impact by an inch or so—barely enough to matter.

I’ve attempted to raise the POA by filing down the rear sight, but I’m quickly running out of real estate there, and my alterations to it have resulted in negligible changes in the right direction.

At this point, I’m beginning to think the culprit might be the front sight. It seems awfully short (maybe around 1/8 inch), which is odd since every other traditional muzzleloader I’ve owned has a tendency to shoot low at any given distance and has required a fair amount of filing of the front sight.

Has anyone else encountered a similar issue with a Ken Netting or any other flintlock pistol? I’m considering replacing or modifying the front sight (it’s silver soldered on), but I’ve having a difficult time finding replacement sights (those without a base for a dovetail) on any of the various muzzleloading supply sites. Should I fashion one out of some sheet brass?

Looking forward to your thoughts and advice!

Beautifully crafted pistol

Shooting 12" high is pretty far off on a straight octagon barrel ... One member mentioned bore runout but that would be unusual on a quality new made barrel so I would 'first' check if the muzzle was cut square to the bore as another member recommended or possibly the bores crown is cut off center ?

If the barrel's muzzle & crown show are cut square with the bore & still shoots 12'' high looks like your dealing with a bore runout issue.
If so, this requires removing the soldered front sight with a propane torch & cutting a 'small' dovetail & installing a new front sight.

I make most of my small pistol front & rear sights out of barrel underlugs from Muzzleloader Builders Supply or make them from metal T stock.

Dovetails are easy to cut with a hacksaw , need a pair of 6" inexpensive steel calipers to measure & scratch- scribe the width & depth of the cuts on your dovetails onto the barrel.
Use small files to remove excess metal & a small 3-corner file to cut the dovetails, will need to grind off one-side of the teeth on one flat of a small file to make accurate dovetail cuts.
*Can use a small chisel or angle the hacksaw saw blade at 45 degrees & coarse grit files to remove the fins & complete the dovetail.
Photos below are are a flint pistol I recently completed.
Hope this helps.

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

Thanks for your input, Relic.

Given that it’s a .50 cal, I don’t think there’s enough material on the barrel to safely cut much of a dovetail—maybe 1/8” at most between the barrel flat and the rifling groove, if that. Because of that, I’ll likely have to silver solder the front sight in place.

I took the pistol out again yesterday and found that I could more or less hit my intended point of aim by burying the front sight in the rear sight groove. That suggests the issue is indeed the front sight being too short rather than something more problematic. I’m just surprised it’s only about 1/16” tall to begin with—that seems extreme.

 

[Relic shooter]

Thanks for your input, Relic.

Given that it’s a .50 cal, I don’t think there’s enough material on the barrel to safely cut much of a dovetail—maybe 1/8” at most between the barrel flat and the rifling groove, if that. Because of that, I’ll likely have to silver solder the front sight in place.

I took the pistol out again yesterday and found that I could more or less hit my intended point of aim by burying the front sight in the rear sight groove. That suggests the issue is indeed the front sight being too short rather than something more problematic. I’m just surprised it’s only about 1/16” tall to begin with—that seems extreme.

Great news on last trip to the range
Your simplest fix may be just filing down top of the rear sight down.
On thinner barrels like yours & some originals I shoot the front sight dovetails are very narrow & shallow as shown on this French dueling pistol.
Half of the front sight was missing & broken when I acquired it, maybe shooter was on losing end ?

Often the front sights are very tiny on these type pistols , I used a 1/8" thick piece of flat steel stock & hammered the base into a slight dovetail & filled to fit match the original style sight.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Your simplest fix may be just filing down top of the rear sight down.

... I've had to do that on rifles a time or 2 ...

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

Great news on last trip to the range
Your simplest fix may be just filing down top of the rear sight down.
On thinner barrels like yours & some originals I shoot the front sight dovetails are very narrow & shallow as shown on this French dueling pistol.
Half of the front sight was missing & broken when I acquired it, maybe shooter was on losing end ?

Often the front sights are very tiny on these type pistols , I used a 1/8" thick piece of flat steel stock & hammered the base into a slight dovetail & filled to fit match the original style sight.

I’ve tried that, but even after filing the rear sight’s height down by half, I haven’t seen much change in my point of impact. It was already pretty short—maybe 1/4” to begin with—so I was hesitant to take off too much more and end up with little more than a nub.

I’m hoping the new .300” front sight I ordered from Track will give me a marked increase in elevation. If not, I may have to consider some of the suggestions about ditching the rear sight altogether. As someone who shoots smoothbores and trade guns regularly, that wouldn’t be entirely unfamiliar territory.

 

[Relic shooter]

I’ve tried that, but even after filing the rear sight’s height down by half, I haven’t seen much change in my point of impact. It was already pretty short—maybe 1/4” to begin with—so I was hesitant to take off too much more and end up with little more than a nub.

I’m hoping the new .300” front sight I ordered from Track will give me a marked increase in elevation. If not, I may have to consider some of the suggestions about ditching the rear sight altogether. As someone who shoots smoothbores and trade guns regularly, that wouldn’t be entirely unfamiliar territory.

Understand FF
I also enjoy shooting smooth bores.
In younger days had great fun winning a few 50 & 100 yd rifle matches with a flint SB .62 cal. French Fusil I built with a period tapered 42'' barrel.
Had access to a stack of a friends lodge poles to regulate the barrel so it would shoot dead on @ 50yds.
Required a full day of regulating / tweaking & stress relieving between the lodge poles, re-assembly
& repeated test firings to get it to hit consistently dead on..
Tail of a snake engraved where tang & breech joined served as rear sight reference that lined up perfectly with the turtle front sight.

 

[M. De Land]

Thanks for your input, Relic.

Given that it’s a .50 cal, I don’t think there’s enough material on the barrel to safely cut much of a dovetail—maybe 1/8” at most between the barrel flat and the rifling groove, if that. Because of that, I’ll likely have to silver solder the front sight in place.

I took the pistol out again yesterday and found that I could more or less hit my intended point of aim by burying the front sight in the rear sight groove. That suggests the issue is indeed the front sight being too short rather than something more problematic. I’m just surprised it’s only about 1/16” tall to begin with—that seems extreme.

Typical standard dove tails are only .090 deep when mill cut and 1/16 th is .0625. I'd be really surprised if you didn't have enough barrel wall for a standard dovetail blade. I like to leave a margin of at least .040 of barrel steel under a dove tail at the muzzle and more back in the breech area.
A lot of these barrels on muzzle loaders are made of 12L14 steel which is screw stock not certified barrel steel and should have a good margin of barrel wall left for safety. Be that as it may they are probably still stronger than the originals made of wrought iron.

 

[waksupi]

Replace the sights, they are the cheapest parts. I certainly would not be filing on the barrel.
Since you have ordered new sights, I would go ahead and file down the original and see what you end up with.

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

Replace the sights, they are the cheapest parts. I certainly would not be filing on the barrel.
Since you have ordered new sights, I would go ahead and file down the original and see what you end up with.

Thanks, Ric. I appreciate you!