progression

[jaybird14]

Happy 4th. ( i know it the 6th but its the weekend)

I've built and re-furbed a few CVA and traditions rifle and pistil kits and would like to take the next step in building. What do you suggest?
This gun will be used for deer hunting in Wisconsin.

Late 18th century (1776 ish ) would be cool.

Thanks!!

Jay

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
If you are right handed, a Kibler colonial long rifle kit.

dave

 

[Vaino]

If you want to learn how to build a MLer in addition to acquiring a hunting rifle, the Chambers early Lancaster would do it all.

If you just want to acquire a hunting rifle, then get the Kibler Colonial LR which is much easier to assemble......Fred

 

[dave_person]

Hi Fred,
You are right but Kibler's kits will show you exactly what a properly designed and made rifle should look like. If you move on to more extensive building you now have a 3-D model for correct shaping details such as lock moldings, wrist, comb, shaping and thinness of the fore stock, how the fore stock steps both at the muzzle and at the rear ramrod pipe. Those are all details that new builders usually get badly wrong even when constructing Chambers kits.

dave

 

[Sidney Smith]

It's not the end of the world if someone doesn't shape their rifle to exacting historical standards. The man said he will be using the gun for hunting. Even if the forestock or wrist isn't perfect he will still get the experience of what it's like to hunt the way our forefathers did.

Not meant to offend but it kinda bugs me when people nit pick over aesthetics. So what if it's not to exacting historical standards.

All that aside, if you do move up the builders scale at least get all the critical areas pre inletted. This way when you do assemble the gun you will see how the mortices are supposed to look. When you do decide to try inletting say a lock, as I did this time around, you can reference how its done. I know you can do that with a CVA or Traditions gun as well but IMO they are a poor road map to follow.

 

[Pete G]

If somebody doesn't care what their gun looks like they might as well be shooting a modern plastic stocked piece. One of my pet peeves are builders who don't do proper research.

 

[Zonie]

If somebody doesn't care what their gun looks like they might as well be shooting a modern plastic stocked piece. One of my pet peeves are builders who don't do proper research.

Oh B.S.

If you were speaking to someone who has built several of the non-factory guns I would say you have a good point but to say it to someone who is just starting out and their only real interest is to have a rifle to hunt with is IMO, going too far.

It's like telling someone who is interested in painting a picture with oil paints they first must study the Masters like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Reynolds and then try to duplicate their work.

 

[Pete G]

We are not discssing the same thing. I specifically remember seeing a slapped together "mountain rifle" kit that was stained, not sanded or finished and had a duct tape pistol grip. It was not a pretty sight.

 

[Sidney Smith]

If somebody doesn't care what their gun looks like they might as well be shooting a modern plastic stocked piece. One of my pet peeves are builders who don't do proper research.

Well, thats your pet peeve. Not everyone has the same priorities. And what the next guy does with his money is his business.

 

[Sidney Smith]

We are not discssing the same thing. I specifically remember seeing a slapped together "mountain rifle" kit that was stained, not sanded or finished and had a duct tape pistol grip. It was not a pretty sight.

That's a little extreme I would imagine.

Can't recall ever seeing anyone with a muzzleloader built in such a way, but I did run into a guy once while pheasant hunting, who had the forearm of his shotgun (modern weapon) held together with electricians tape. The bluing on this gun was nonexistant, and his overalls looked like they went a few rounds with a badger. But he had birds in his game bag so who's to say.

 

[Kansas Jake]

If you want a gun you can use this fall, try to get a Kibler kit ASAP. If you want something in the next year or two look to one of the others if that is your choice. It is just a function of the time needed to build one.

 

[Col. Batguano]

I would suggest studying this and the other building forums quite a bit. There are very nice guns that get posted on both. There are also some pretty bad ones. Study what you like in them, and what you don't. Pay particular attention to the transition zones, such as around the wrist and tail end area of the lock.

A well-built gun will seem to "flow naturally" in these areas from one zone to the next. A gun that is built "by the numbers" will seem to be a series of individual features with definite start and stop places, and curves that are of a consistent radius throughout. On a gun that "flows" those radiuses are always changing, inviting the eye to follow along. It's harder to explain it than it is to show you with examples.

Then get a hold of both the building books: "Recreating the American Long Rifle" and "The Gunsmith of Grenville County". For carving and engraving, the book; "Engraving Historical Firearms" is a good one. The Engraver's Cafe web site has some pretty neat stuff too.

If you want to go further with historical research, there are a number of other sources out there as well.

 

[Eric Krewson]

My first rifle was what I call a "sorta" Beck, not to be confused with the real thing, not exactly a thing of beauty but it sure has put a lot of deer on the ground. It is miles ahead of any plastic M/L wannabee even in its somewhat incorrect state, it took me 2 years to make.

My second, third and fourth are correct and look the way they are supposed to look, I had to develop an eye for detail.

Old ugly, both of us;

 

[jaybird14]

I would suggest studying this and the other building forums quite a bit. There are very nice guns that get posted on both. There are also some pretty bad ones. Study what you like in them, and what you don't. Pay particular attention to the transition zones, such as around the wrist and tail end area of the lock.

A well-built gun will seem to "flow naturally" in these areas from one zone to the next. A gun that is built "by the numbers" will seem to be a series of individual features with definite start and stop places, and curves that are of a consistent radius throughout. On a gun that "flows" those radiuses are always changing, inviting the eye to follow along. It's harder to explain it than it is to show you with examples.

Then get a hold of both the building books: "Recreating the American Long Rifle" and "The Gunsmith of Grenville County". For carving and engraving, the book; "Engraving Historical Firearms" is a good one. The Engraver's Cafe web site has some pretty neat stuff too.

If you want to go further with historical research, there are a number of other sources out there as well.

Thank you!!!

I was thinking of getting a set of plans that I liked from TOW and slowly and carefully building off of that... along with researching the books you have mentioned.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Don't forget to take some of your own personal measurements for when you do the build. What drop at the comb is right for you, what cast-off and toe in is most comfortable.

 

[jbwilliams3]

My advice would be to listen to Dave Person's advice...

 

[dave_person]

Hi and thanks guys,
JayBird14, take a look at this:
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/kibler-colonial.115538/#post-1579409
No Pedersoli, Cabelas, GPR, TVM, will match this. You can build a Chambers kit rifle into as fine a gun but it will take more work. As a model for rifle architecture and the details of good long rifle design, Kiblers cannot be beat.

dave

 

[Alexander Efremenko]

What Dave said, it is not the most challenging build, nor the cheapest.
But you will have an authentic piece with good architecture. A good model for future builds.
Or a man could cobble up something looking like a plane of the apes gun from the seventies if he doesn't care about that.
But see what you get when you try to sell it.

 

[Alexander Efremenko]

So people know what I'm talking about.

 

[Eric Krewson]

I built three rifles using TOW pans for reference including the one pictured above. The are good for generalizations but don't follow them exactly. On the above gun I drew out a copy of the plans with carbon paper and proceed to inlet the lock right where the plan indicated. Low and behold the lock used in the plan had a sear about 1" forward of the lock I was using. Once my lock and trigger were in I realized my length of pull had shortened by and inch. Had I not left extra wood on the butt when I sawed out my blank I would have had a 12" length of pull, lesson learned.

Make a try stock to figure out your drop and length of pull to transfer to your plans. adjust it until you can close your eyes, shoulder the stock and have the sights perfectly lined up when you open your eyes.