- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,292
- Reaction score
- 11,300
Hi Tom.,
You did a nice job. Are you open for some constructive comments?
dave
You did a nice job. Are you open for some constructive comments?
dave
New Winter Project
- Thread starter Tom A Hawk
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Absolutely. Fire away.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2016
- Messages
- 3,515
- Reaction score
- 3,807
Impressed with the double barrel undertaking. Kudos. 
And a hats off.
And a hats off.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,292
- Reaction score
- 11,300
Hi Tom,
Great. First, you did a really nice job and the fit and finish look top notch. My first comment is about historical consistency. These mountain rifles were 19th century and the vast majority had later style flint locks not early German styles like the Siler. These were not the rifles of Daniel Boone or Simon Kenton. Many surviving examples were made just prior to the Civil War. Chambers late Ketland and Jim Kiblers's new late flintlock would be the perfect locks. Obviously, if you were not concerned about historical issues, any lock is fine and the Siler is a good one. The flats around the lock and side plate are too wide. They would look much better half their width or less and the stock would look more rounded through the lock area if that were so. The first photo is of one of Kibler's kits showing the lock and side panels.
The second shows a Siler lock surrounded by narrow flats giving the gun a slim elegant look.
Jim's kit is based on rifles by the Whitson family and are representatives of southern mountain rifles from the 1820s-1840s. The cheek piece on your rifle is very large. Look at the photo below again of a Kibler rifle and the photo of an original Whitson gun. Note how small the cheek piece is and the strongly concave surface.
Certainly, there was a lot of variation in SMRs but there are some architectures that look better than others and the design of Kibler and Whitson guns are the best of that genre in my opinion. Hopefully, my comments give you some food for thought on your next gun. Again, your rifle is very nice and the wood and finish extraordinary.
dave
Great. First, you did a really nice job and the fit and finish look top notch. My first comment is about historical consistency. These mountain rifles were 19th century and the vast majority had later style flint locks not early German styles like the Siler. These were not the rifles of Daniel Boone or Simon Kenton. Many surviving examples were made just prior to the Civil War. Chambers late Ketland and Jim Kiblers's new late flintlock would be the perfect locks. Obviously, if you were not concerned about historical issues, any lock is fine and the Siler is a good one. The flats around the lock and side plate are too wide. They would look much better half their width or less and the stock would look more rounded through the lock area if that were so. The first photo is of one of Kibler's kits showing the lock and side panels.
The second shows a Siler lock surrounded by narrow flats giving the gun a slim elegant look.
Jim's kit is based on rifles by the Whitson family and are representatives of southern mountain rifles from the 1820s-1840s. The cheek piece on your rifle is very large. Look at the photo below again of a Kibler rifle and the photo of an original Whitson gun. Note how small the cheek piece is and the strongly concave surface.
Certainly, there was a lot of variation in SMRs but there are some architectures that look better than others and the design of Kibler and Whitson guns are the best of that genre in my opinion. Hopefully, my comments give you some food for thought on your next gun. Again, your rifle is very nice and the wood and finish extraordinary.
dave
Dave,
Thanks for your comments and historical perspective. For some reason, the standard Pecatonica Tennessee Classic stock is inlet for a Siler, so I went with that. If I make another Tennessee I'll try the later Ketland. I have no complaints with the performance of the Deluxe Siler though. Ignition is very fast and reliable. The position of the cock at half cock is a bit odd however. At 7 lbs this rifle in .50 caliber is bit lighter weight than my others and while I like the visual lines of this gun, with its deeply curved butt and sharp points, recoil with my usual hunting load can be a real attention getter if not properly mounted. I am now anxious to see how the .40 will perform. It should be ready for field trials in time for the Spring Turkey season.
I am thinking the next project may be an Isaac Haines 38" swamped barrel with sliding patch box and silver wire inlay. I am finding that to be another rather handsome fire lock.
Thanks for your comments and historical perspective. For some reason, the standard Pecatonica Tennessee Classic stock is inlet for a Siler, so I went with that. If I make another Tennessee I'll try the later Ketland. I have no complaints with the performance of the Deluxe Siler though. Ignition is very fast and reliable. The position of the cock at half cock is a bit odd however. At 7 lbs this rifle in .50 caliber is bit lighter weight than my others and while I like the visual lines of this gun, with its deeply curved butt and sharp points, recoil with my usual hunting load can be a real attention getter if not properly mounted. I am now anxious to see how the .40 will perform. It should be ready for field trials in time for the Spring Turkey season.
I am thinking the next project may be an Isaac Haines 38" swamped barrel with sliding patch box and silver wire inlay. I am finding that to be another rather handsome fire lock.
Had a productive afternoon today. The lock and tang bolt holes were drilled for the .40 barrel and both line up with perfect screw slot orientation as with the first barrel. Also installed the staples and vent liner. Still have to tweak the staples a bit but, knock on wood, things are coming together better than anticipated. I should be able to start browning the new barrel by tomorrow.
Similar threads
