AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: rfd on September 24, 2025, 11:54:30 PM
-
Eagerly awaiting it's arrival, hopefully by very early next year as I could sure use it to replace my Pedersoli Bess kit for 250th reenacting events.
-
Is Kibler planning on making a new style lock for it? Or was he going to use the same as the fowler?
-
Is Kibler planning on making a new style lock for it? Or was he going to use the same as the fowler?
No details yet on anything about the Kibler Bess, other than it's gonna be offered.
-
The Pedersoli Bess kit I bought off DGW was a bit of a disappointment and not the typical offshore "screwdriver kit". More than a few details were out of spec and required a fair amount of fixing (way off center pipe stock mortises, and other inlet/mortise components that were just a bit "off"). But the lock itself is at least decent, with a hard hammer steel that sparks well. It'll be a relief to get a Kibler Bess kit.
(https://i.ibb.co/bgj0qpLR/bess1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DDPJs3kg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Ldjw0sJd/bess2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zV9cmt7V)
-
I think the Bess will be my first Kibler kit. I know it will be. I well remember shooting a 2 1/2" 5-shot group at 50 yds with the 1748(I think) model Bess Taylor built. That one was 10 bore, .774". What a gem it was. AND I have help iff I get into trouble. I'm not well known for having much in the way of patience.
-
Is Kibler planning on making a new style lock for it? Or was he going to use the same as the fowler?
Is the fowler lock the same as that found on a Bess?
-
Hi Guys,
As I understand it, Jim's Bess kit will be a long land musket meaning it has a 46" barrel and should weight 10-11 lbs. It will be be nothing like your Pedersolis or Mirokus. It will be much bigger and heavier. Hopefully he won't use his fowler lock which is totally too small and the wrong design. For those of you who have only handled Pedersolis or Mirokus, you have never experienced a real Brown Bess, short land or long land. If Jim accurately reproduces a long land Brown Bess, you will be in for a shock.
dave
-
Hi Guys,
As I understand it, Jim's Bess kit will be a long land musket meaning it has a 46" barrel and should weight 10-11 lbs. It will be be nothing like your Pedersolis or Mirokus. It will be much bigger and heavier. Hopefully he won't use his fowler lock which is totally too small and the wrong design. For those of you who have only handled Pedersolis or Mirokus, you have never experienced a real Brown Bess, short land or long land. If Jim accurately reproduces a long land Brown Bess, you will be in for a shock.
dave
Interesting. I heard it'd be a 2nd Land Pattern 42" bbl - which would be the smartest choice possible over the 1st Land Pattern.
-
Hi Guys,
As I understand it, Jim's Bess kit will be a long land musket meaning it has a 46" barrel and should weight 10-11 lbs. It will be be nothing like your Pedersolis or Mirokus. It will be much bigger and heavier. Hopefully he won't use his fowler lock which is totally too small and the wrong design. For those of you who have only handled Pedersolis or Mirokus, you have never experienced a real Brown Bess, short land or long land. If Jim accurately reproduces a long land Brown Bess, you will be in for a shock.
dave
Interesting. I heard it'd be a 2nd Land Pattern 42" bbl - which would be the smartest choice possible over the 1st Land Pattern.
Smartest choice by what criteria? Many disagree.
-
Hi Guys,
As I understand it, Jim's Bess kit will be a long land musket meaning it has a 46" barrel and should weight 10-11 lbs. It will be be nothing like your Pedersolis or Mirokus. It will be much bigger and heavier. Hopefully he won't use his fowler lock which is totally too small and the wrong design. For those of you who have only handled Pedersolis or Mirokus, you have never experienced a real Brown Bess, short land or long land. If Jim accurately reproduces a long land Brown Bess, you will be in for a shock.
dave
Interesting. I heard it'd be a 2nd Land Pattern 42" bbl - which would be the smartest choice possible over the 1st Land Pattern.
Smartest choice by what criteria? Many disagree.
As a Rev War reenactor, the easier to handle 2nd Land Pattern is a boon over the 1st Land Pattern, and I do believe that for the most part (1775 and on) it was the 2nd Land Pattern carried by the Regulars.
-
We have a fantastic original 1756 Long Land pattern that we we be copying in every detail including the lock. The only change I anticipate making to the original is modifying some of the lock markings.
Thanks
-
Hi,
Unfortunately, there is no pattern of Brown Bess issued to British troops, except possibly the marine and militia musket, that bridges the F&I war and Rev war. The pattern 1756 long land was not issued in time to serve in America during the F&I war but it was the most common musket issued to British troops during the first 2 years of the Rev war and was still made until 1791. It was also the main gun issued to loyalists and it also armed many patriot troops. On the patriot side there could be some old pattern 1742 long lands still in useable condition in colonial stores or in private ownership (stolen from the crown) so that pattern gun could bridge the two wars with American troops. With the exception of the marine and militia musket, short lands did not start to show up among British troops until 1774 at the earliest. Although the gun was the pattern 1769 short land, ordnance always issued older guns in store first before sending out new patterns. The pattern dates indicate the year a pattern was accepted and production begun, not when they were issued They had plenty of long lands in store at the beginning of the war so those got issued first. The first big slug of short lands came in spring 1776 among troops sent to relieve Quebec City. Those were labeled "Dublin Castle". However, even then, the commander of the 24th foot demanded long lands and even delayed sailing for America to get them. Another slug came with some troops sent to capture Charleston in 1776. Despite those regiments, the majority of British troops had long lands until 1777 or so. On the patriot side there would be very few short lands until much later in the war. They would come from captured ships and battlefield acquisitions.
So the pattern 1756 long land with a lock simply marked "TOWER" and no date on the tail would be a good choice for patriots and British reenactors for much of the Rev War. Although it was not used during the F&I war, it still looks a lot more authentic than any of the repro short lands carried by so many F&I reenactors today. Regardless of pattern, the musket if made authentically, will be about 1-1.5 lbs heavier than your Pedersolis and Mirokus and much bigger in all dimensions. I am sure Jim will do a great job on it and with his production methods, I suspect he could eventually produce both short and long lands without a lot of extra tooling. He will turn the Brown Bess market on its head, which will be a good thing, long overdue.
dave
-
We have a fantastic original 1756 Long Land pattern that we we be copying in every detail including the lock. The only change I anticipate making to the original is modifying some of the lock markings.
Thanks
Wishing it was the Short Land Pattern but will gladly accept the Long Land Pattern, which will be heavier still whence a bayonet is stuck on. >:(
When can I early order one? ;D 8)
-
We have a fantastic original 1756 Long Land pattern that we we be copying in every detail including the lock. The only change I anticipate making to the original is modifying some of the lock markings.
Thanks
Great news, Jim!
-
We have a fantastic original 1756 Long Land pattern that we we be copying in every detail including the lock. The only change I anticipate making to the original is modifying some of the lock markings.
Thanks
Wishing it was the Short Land Pattern but will gladly accept the Long Land Pattern, which will be heavier still whence a bayonet is stuck on. >:(
When can I early order one? ;D 8)
Actually, the short land musket only saved a few ounces but was a little handier because of the shorter barrel. The barrels on both long and short lands were 1.31"-1.41" across at the breech and 0.9-0.91" diameter at the muzzle. They are big barrels. In contrast Pedersoli barrels are 1.21" at the breech and 0.88" at the muzzle. Here are some photos showing an authentic copy of a short land buttplate against a Pedersoli stock.
(https://i.ibb.co/zWYNW8qV/butt-2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/DgHvVRKX/butt-3.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/LdL3TYLq/butt-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/v47SNV7r)
dave
-
Being personal in considering my current age and physique, if I had a choice I'd absolutely prefer a shorter/handier/lighter Bess, and I'd bet the average 18th century Brit Regulars would've, too. I see nothing gained by a longer bbl, either - again, considering what a Bess is with regards to 18th century warfare. Then again, maybe a Regular would appreciate a 4" longer bayonet spear, with more terminal weight behind it.
BUT, I'll gladly welcome Jim's Long Land Pattern Bess!
-
I never had much interest in military flintlock guns of the era, nor kit building, but I'm going to get one of these. Probably the closest thing to an original most of us will ever own. Thank you Jim Kibler.
Robby
-
David, thank you ever so much for the history lesson.
VERY MUCH appreciated.
-
I'm deffinately interested. Hopefully the stock will have enough drop. I had a Pedersoli and there was no way to get your eye low enough to look down the barrel.
-
...I had a Pedersoli and there was no way to get your eye low enough to look down the barrel.
So true, almost defeats the need to aim. 8)
-
Hi,
Remember, Brown Besses were built to fixed patterns that were controlled as tightly as it was possible in the 18th century. They were never built as shooters and sporting guns nor were they fitted to the soldier. On pattern 1756s, drop at heel based on my tracings of originals ranges between 1.5"-2.0" . That is not a lot but the saving grace compared with your Mirokus and Pedersolis is that the buttplate is much taller than those repros. You have more gun to move up or down on your shoulder. Look at my photo above and you can see the difference. The short land muskets get even straighter in the stock. The best Besses for fitting the shooter are the earliest patterns (1730, 1742, and 1748). They often have drops at heel 2.5" or even a little greater. Length of pull varied between 13 5/8" to almost 14". Besses were not made by small gun shops like you had in the American colonies. The British government contracted with many score contractors and tradesmen to produce the separate components and the metal stuff was then stored at the Tower or Dublin Castle until there were government warrants to set them up. Then the stock wood was obtained and the guns assembled to be sent to storage or issued immediately. John Hirst had a virtual monopoly setting up muskets and carbines for ordnance between 1758 and 1776. In that time his workers assembled over 360,000 guns or 20,000 guns every year, or 385 guns a week, or 64 guns every day (6-day work week), or 5.3 guns every hour, in a 12 hour work day. In the photo below I show a Pedersoli Bess and a pattern 1769 short land musket made by my shop. You can see the differences in size and drop. To really visualize it, put an 18" ruler against the top of the comb on the Pedersoli and note the edge passes over the screw holding on the flint cock. Now do the same with the other musket and you will see the line goes through or slightly under that screw as it should.
(https://i.ibb.co/KctN2M6t/pedersoli-vs-mine-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zW38Xys3)
(https://i.ibb.co/v46wppGm/pedersoli-vs-mine-2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/JWP2Sxzg/Brown-Bess-dimensions-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KcH78N9S)
dave
-
If this drives lots of used Pedersoli and Miroku besses to the market, it will be an opportunity to get them fairly cheap and restock the parts into American-made muskets. Should be fun!
-
Hi,
Remember, Brown Besses were built to fixed patterns that were controlled as tightly as it was possible in the 18th century. They were never built as shooters and sporting guns nor were they fitted to the soldier. On pattern 1756s, drop at heel based on my tracings of originals ranges between 1.5"-2.0" . That is not a lot but the saving grace compared with your Mirokus and Pedersolis is that the buttplate is much taller than those repros. You have more gun to move up or down on your shoulder. Look at my photo above and you can see the difference. The short land muskets get even straighter in the stock. The best Besses for fitting the shooter are the earliest patterns (1730, 1742, and 1748). They often have drops at heel 2.5" or even a little greater. Length of pull varied between 13 5/8" to almost 14". Besses were not made by small gun shops like you had in the American colonies. The British government contracted with many score contractors and tradesmen to produce the separate components and the metal stuff was then stored at the Tower or Dublin Castle until there were government warrants to set them up. Then the stock wood was obtained and the guns assembled to be sent to storage or issued immediately. John Hirst had a virtual monopoly setting up muskets and carbines for ordnance between 1758 and 1776. In that time his workers assembled over 360,000 guns or 20,000 guns every year, or 385 guns a week, or 64 guns every day (6-day work week), or 5.3 guns every hour, in a 12 hour work day. In the photo below I show a Pedersoli Bess and a pattern 1769 short land musket made by my shop. You can see the differences in size and drop. To really visualize it, put an 18" ruler against the top of the comb on the Pedersoli and note the edge passes over the screw holding on the flint cock. Now do the same with the other musket and you will see the line goes through or slightly under that screw as it should.
(https://i.ibb.co/KctN2M6t/pedersoli-vs-mine-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zW38Xys3)
(https://i.ibb.co/v46wppGm/pedersoli-vs-mine-2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/JWP2Sxzg/Brown-Bess-dimensions-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KcH78N9S)
dave
Good scoop and hoping Jim's Bess kit will have that butt stock comb angle that will allow for actually aiming the weapon.
-
As a thought for Jim Kibler- there might be a large overseas market for your Brown Bess muskets. I am wondering that making select “overseas kits” might include barrels with no touch holes.
Just a thought.
The Brown Bess kit market may allow you to retire early 🤣
-
I suspect that keeping up with US demand alone will keep the shop busy. But export sales would certainly be probable.
-
We have a fantastic original 1756 Long Land pattern that we we be copying in every detail including the lock. The only change I anticipate making to the original is modifying some of the lock markings.
Thanks
As smart dog alluded to in his previous post concerning the issue most of us with Pedersoli and other Bess guns have, will the Kibler Bess have a butt stock comb geometry that will better facilitate actually aiming the gun?
-
Since Jim is copying a 1756, it will aim the same as that. Any modifications to the geometry and it won't be a copy. Given soldiers were encouraged to practice marksmanship whenever circumstances allowed, it is possible to learn to aim. The problem I suspect is many try to aim using modern techniques coupled with the myth soldiers just pointed in a general direction and hoped for the best.
-
I quickly measured the drop from a sighting plane to be around 2 1/8". This was a quick coarse measurement, so it might vary slightly from this number. This original Bess seemed to point fairly well for me.
-
I am glad stock geometry is in the radar screen. I have a Parker hale 2-band that is stocked like the originals. The drop is insufficient to use the sights with a normal shooting stance.
-
I agree that it should stay as close to the original as possible without altering the architecture since the idea, at least as I understand it, is to make a copy that is an accurate reproduction of an original (unlike what can be purchased at present outside of going to a custom builder). I have the Pedersoli version and am very much looking forward to replacing it with one of Jim’s reproductions for that reason. Once he’s done, assuming it’s a success, maybe he can be convinced to do a Charleville as well.
-
I agree that it should stay as close to the original as possible without altering the architecture since the idea, at least as I understand it, is to make a copy that is an accurate reproduction of an original (unlike what can be purchased at present outside of going to a custom builder). I have the Pedersoli version and am very much looking forward to replacing it with one of Jim’s reproductions for that reason. Once he’s done, assuming it’s a success, maybe he can be convinced to do a Charleville as well.
Well, yes, kinda.
I have a Pedi Bess and the drop at the comb is 1-5/8" which means sighting down the bbl is for contortionists only, which is why I'm looking for a period correct replica firelock/Bess that is better for aim shooting.
IF a firelock replica is based fully on an original that has a good overall shouldering, aiming, shooting geometry, for most folks; fine, sign me up, I want one yesterday. IF not, well, no thank you. If I'm in the minority of reenactors, so be it, but I want a firelock that I can aim and shoot, rather than just shoot. And I'd rather that firelock be a Bess rather than a Charlie.
As a Rev War reenactor, we do strive for authenticity of kit, be it firelock, garb, or whatever, but in reality the vast majority of our audience at events don't get into the minutiae of period correctness and are there for the overall historic immersion experience and absolutely for the boom, flash, and smoke.
-
I just pulled out the Parker Hale I mentioned above. The drop and comb is 1.5", heal is 2.0", LOP is 14.25. It is not usable for me. It really disappointed and frustrated me. The best barrel you can get is attached to a horrible stock.
-
Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel. For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop. However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well. Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel. It will hurt a bit. If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately, I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band. I am doing one of these this winter for a client. For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s.
dave
-
Seems I read once that if you aim the Bess and Enfield with your body perpendicular to the weapon it aims better. But it is un-natural for an American to aim like that so when we aim it like a Kentucky rifle it can be frustrating. But with at least a Pedersoli Bess I once had, the tilting up of the barrel was needed to get the point of impact on target, so it relieved the aiming problem immensely. If I would have had to aim down the barrel it would have been a nightmare. So hopefully the Kibler Bess will shoot low so we can adjust by tilting the barrel to find the correct sight picture that also will allow for a comfortable hold. But as Mr. Kibler said it aimed fine for him.
-
Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel. For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop. However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well. Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel. It will hurt a bit. If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately, I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band. I am doing one of these this winter for a client. For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s.
dave
Hi Dave,
Thanx for your post, really good scoop.
As to the ramrod and reenacting, it's only used to ping the breech plug to proof the bbl is empty, which can be accomplished with a wood ramrod fitted with a brass ferrule. I run 105 grains of mostly "home brewed" 1-1/2F for blank cartridge reenacting and 70 to 90 grains of Swiss 1-1/2F for "target shooting" with a patched .69 ball - no cartridge used or needed and a separate range rod for ball ramming and tube cleaning.
Since it appears Jim's Bess will be a 1756 replica that might be problematic for proper aiming, though Jim states its comb drop is 2-1/8" which at least for me will be far better than the Pedi's 1-5/8" ... or maybe Jim could take pity on us shooters and fudge the drop a tad lower. 8)
-
Seems I read once that if you aim the Bess and Enfield with your body perpendicular to the weapon it aims better. But it is un-natural for an American to aim like that so when we aim it like a Kentucky rifle it can be frustrating. But with at least a Pedersoli Bess I once had, the tilting up of the barrel was needed to get the point of impact on target, so it relieved the aiming problem immensely. If I would have had to aim down the barrel it would have been a nightmare. So hopefully the Kibler Bess will shoot low so we can adjust by tilting the barrel to find the correct sight picture that also will allow for a comfortable hold. But as Mr. Kibler said it aimed fine for him.
With my Pedi 2nd Land Pattern Bess I added a neo magnet to the bayonet lug to raise the front sight up a good 1/4" to help with aiming, but 1/2" would be better yet.
-
IF it is true that in the 18th century most folks / soldiers were of smaller stature, then might that be a reason that guns from that era, and therefore accurate copies of them, might seem to not have enough drop for us behemoths of modern times?
And, just what do we want, more comfortable shooters or more accurate reproductions??
Just musing..................
-
The Brits and the French do feared quite a bit in drop of some guns. The 1728 fusil ordinaire from TRS has a great deal of drop off in the buttstock. I’m guessing that there was variation from model to model.
Less drop doesn’t need as wide a plank to cut stocks from. Certainly seems to have been a factor in some Carolina guns and later NW guns.
-
Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel. For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop. However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well. Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel. It will hurt a bit. If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately, I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band. I am doing one of these this winter for a client. For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s.
dave
Hi Dave,
Thanx for your post, really good scoop.
As to the ramrod and reenacting, it's only used to ping the breech plug to proof the bbl is empty, which can be accomplished with a wood ramrod fitted with a brass ferrule. I run 105 grains of mostly "home brewed" 1-1/2F for blank cartridge reenacting and 70 to 90 grains of Swiss 1-1/2F for "target shooting" with a patched .69 ball - no cartridge used or needed and a separate range rod for ball ramming and tube cleaning.
Since it appears Jim's Bess will be a 1756 replica that might be problematic for proper aiming, though Jim states its comb drop is 2-1/8" which at least for me will be far better than the Pedi's 1-5/8" ... or maybe Jim could take pity on us shooters and fudge the drop a tad lower. 8)
The British firing position was with the right foot back and pointed out, turning the body slightly.
If they could become proficient enough to practice marksmanship, the problem in aiming a Bess is ours, not the gun's. It can be done.
Modifying it to appease modern shooters means it would no longer be an authentic reproduction, and Kibler might as well use a Pedersoli as a prototype.
-
I agree that it should stay as close to the original as possible without altering the architecture since the idea, at least as I understand it, is to make a copy that is an accurate reproduction of an original (unlike what can be purchased at present outside of going to a custom builder). I have the Pedersoli version and am very much looking forward to replacing it with one of Jim’s reproductions for that reason. Once he’s done, assuming it’s a success, maybe he can be convinced to do a Charleville as well.
Well, yes, kinda.
I have a Pedi Bess and the drop at the comb is 1-5/8" which means sighting down the bbl is for contortionists only, which is why I'm looking for a period correct replica firelock/Bess that is better for aim shooting.
IF a firelock replica is based fully on an original that has a good overall shouldering, aiming, shooting geometry, for most folks; fine, sign me up, I want one yesterday. IF not, well, no thank you. If I'm in the minority of reenactors, so be it, but I want a firelock that I can aim and shoot, rather than just shoot. And I'd rather that firelock be a Bess rather than a Charlie.
As a Rev War reenactor, we do strive for authenticity of kit, be it firelock, garb, or whatever, but in reality the vast majority of our audience at events don't get into the minutiae of period correctness and are there for the overall historic immersion experience and absolutely for the boom, flash, and smoke.
. most would not know it was incorrect if you were carrying m-14's
-
Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel. For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop. However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well. Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel. It will hurt a bit. If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately, I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band. I am doing one of these this winter for a client. For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s.
dave
Hi Dave,
Thanx for your post, really good scoop.
As to the ramrod and reenacting, it's only used to ping the breech plug to proof the bbl is empty, which can be accomplished with a wood ramrod fitted with a brass ferrule. I run 105 grains of mostly "home brewed" 1-1/2F for blank cartridge reenacting and 70 to 90 grains of Swiss 1-1/2F for "target shooting" with a patched .69 ball - no cartridge used or needed and a separate range rod for ball ramming and tube cleaning.
Since it appears Jim's Bess will be a 1756 replica that might be problematic for proper aiming, though Jim states its comb drop is 2-1/8" which at least for me will be far better than the Pedi's 1-5/8" ... or maybe Jim could take pity on us shooters and fudge the drop a tad lower. 8)
The British firing position was with the right foot back and pointed out, turning the body slightly.
If they could become proficient enough to practice marksmanship, the problem in aiming a Bess is ours, not the gun's. It can be done.
Modifying it to appease modern shooters means it would no longer be an authentic reproduction, and Kibler might as well use a Pedersoli as a prototype.
There is no "marksmanship" in reenacting, so anyone who solely shoots blanks could care less about a firelock's comb drop.
As a range shooter for accuracy, attempting to employ proven rifle accuracy form with a Bess that's only good for 18th century firelock form is beyond frustration. I want my cake, and eat it too, period.
-
It is not unusual to see antique longarms with the comb cut down or dished out to compensate for lack of drop.
I wonder if it would be practical to offer two stock options - one an absolutely accurate reproduction of the original and a second with greater drop to suit modern handling preferences?
-
I bet Jim is on top of this and we have little to worry about. He mentioned that the original felt fine to him earlier.
IF the stock has insufficient drop to be shot from a comfortable position by a modern shooter Jim will not sell many after the word gets out. Nobody wants a gun that hurts you and can not be aimed. On the 2-band Enfield the stock was designed for an obsolete and ill conceived shooting position. I do not know if it was a hold over from earlier British guns. My Baker copy is just fine. Some 2-bands were restocked for officers and target shooters because of the poorly designed stock. I do not think copying a poorly designed stock was a good idea for Parker Hale.
Bill Adams explains the stock, https://www.myjacobfamily.com/johnjacob/jacobsrifles7 . The idea was that your cheek weld is way back closer to the butplate than a modern position. It is like how many first time shooters try to hold a long gun. To make that work the rifle was pointed more straight out from the chest, not, across the chest as we do today. It looks like how the "tactical shooter" do it minus the hand over the top of barrel. This is a very flawed way to shoot off hand accurately.
The standing position was somewhat modified once rifled arms became standard
issue in the British Army. Soldiers were required to qualify with their weapons
out to the maximum range on the sights. The kneeling position was mandated
from 400 to 600 yards. The “Hythe” standing position is described as “Face the
target, and after making a half turn to the right, advance the left foot ten inches to
the left front, (six to the front and eight to the left), toes pointing to the front, and
right foot pointing to the right. The left elbow well under the rifle and close to the
body; hand firmly, but without constraint, grasping the rifle just behind the lower
band. The right elbow to be raised nearly square with the rifle – right hand
holding the small of the butt lightly, thumb pointing to the muzzle. The centre
(rather higher than lower) of the butt to be pressed firmly to the shoulder with the
left hand, the top of the butt being as nearly as possible with the top of the
shoulder, and the body firm and upright.” If you can get into that position, you
will be able to see through the sights, yet the Field Excercises manual continues:
“should the above position feel constrained, some slight modifications can be
resorted to with advantage.” It was further suggested to “hold the head as far back
as convenient from the sights, which will make them appear more distinct.” What
about that left elbow close to the body? Wimbledon regulations stipulated that in
shooting standing, the left elbow could be rested against the body provided that
the “little finger of the left hand is in front of the projection in front of the lock-
plate...” Resting the elbow against the side was considered “ungraceful and
unsoldierlike.”
-
I very much appreciate Dave's contributions to the thread. Great stuff from an expert. I suspect a pinch of face squishing and a judicious dash of stock shifting on the shoulder (with an appropriately high dominant side elbow) will help correct any problems with the exact stock fit.
Regarding sales, once the kits are established, I can't imagine the demand there will be for what is shaping up be a truly exquisite lock. We are getting the finest land pattern lock (per my notes on the 1756 from Dave's lecture) executed with the best materials and fitment (barring extensive hand work) on the market. Very exciting.
PS: At 10-11 pounds, Kibler's Land Pattern ought to make a great prop for "pokey drill," "musket PT," or turn of the century iron wand exercise! Some inspiration (first like is for a light stick, second a long gun, third the iron wand):
https://youtu.be/S38Y36RUFdA?si=j9botMQJY-wSvuEp
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0AXZm0iTRM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WI8JHRbAK-w
-
I bet Jim is on top of this and we have little to worry about. He mentioned that the original felt fine to him earlier.
IF the stock has insufficient drop to be shot from a comfortable position by a modern shooter Jim will not sell many after the word gets out. Nobody wants a gun that hurts you and can not be aimed. .....
I would think the larger part of a Bess consumer market will be the reenactor community. The other two factions I see are replica collectors and shooters.
If, as Jim has posted, the comb drop of the original is 2-1/8" that will help heaps with most shooters, or shooter and reenactors. 8)
-
Hi,
Jim's kit will be outstanding and it will be a real Brown Bess. I have no doubt about that. I for one will be very excited about it because I turn down many requests to build Besses and when I say "No" I rarely have a very good alternative to recommend except maybe another maker who may or may not be willing to make one from TRS parts. I don't like not being able to point folks to a solid solution and Jim's kit should be a good one. I think there will be a big market not only from reenactors but historic sites, museums, as well as muzzleloader shooters who want a historic military gun. If he can find a way to tap into the British and European market, the sky could be the limit but I am not sure he will need to take on that regulatory and tariff nightmare to sell them well.
dave
-
2 1/8" is a bunch!
I'll buy two. I have a friend who is silly for Brown Besses. I'll need one keep one just because It will be so well made and historically interesting.
-
There is no "marksmanship" in reenacting, so anyone who solely shoots blanks could care less about a firelock's comb drop.
As a range shooter for accuracy, attempting to employ proven rifle accuracy form with a Bess that's only good for 18th century firelock form is beyond frustration. I want my cake, and eat it too, period.
You miss the point. The comb drop was not an issue then, it should not be an issue now if you learn to fire the gun as historically done.
Trying to use rifle accuracy form with a Bess is like trying to drive a Model T in the Daytona 500. Stop complaining about a problem you are creating.
-
There is no "marksmanship" in reenacting, so anyone who solely shoots blanks could care less about a firelock's comb drop.
As a range shooter for accuracy, attempting to employ proven rifle accuracy form with a Bess that's only good for 18th century firelock form is beyond frustration. I want my cake, and eat it too, period.
You miss the point. The comb drop was not an issue then, it should not be an issue now if you learn to fire the gun as historically done.
Trying to use rifle accuracy form with a Bess is like trying to drive a Model T in the Daytona 500. Stop complaining about a problem you are creating.
Read again my posts in this thread. There are reenactors (blanks) and there are shooters (live rounds). Some of us do both with our firelocks.
Therein, you miss my point - I don't care about "historic accuracy" when it comes to musket firearm shooting form - I will NOT adapt to the 18th century, it needs to adapt to ME in the 21st century.
It appears that Jim's 1756 Bess will appeal to all.
-
After hearing (reading) all of this, I come to the conclusion that some people are
buying by Looks or Visions, rather than what Fits. Big Mistake. The aggravation
shooting it will never end, if it doesn't FIT you. It is supposed to be a Enjoyable
experience, not a hassle every time you go.
Go to a place that has a bunch of ML'ers & Shoulder them.
Close your eyes. Shoulder the gun.
Turn at the waist 90 deg left.
Open your eyes & if you are not looking straight down the barrel without adjustment, it
does Not Fit you. You need More or Less drop.
Now Jim has what ? a dozen kits you basically sand & snap together. The only way it
could be easier is if he assembled it for you. But you still need it to FIT after it is done.
So take a day & drive someplace & try a bunch of them & Find the rifle that Fits.
Then get with Jim & find one that has Same Drop & fits rather than what it Looks Like or
what you THINK will work. (You going to put $1000-1500 in what you THINK ::) :-[)
I dearly love the looks of a Hawken rifle. From a child I dreamed of having a Hawken rifle.
In reality, to me it is like shouldering a boat oar with a anchor on the muzzle. I fought
them & fought them for Years. Then one day I was at a ML shop & I tried about 15 dif style
rifles. When I shouldered a Isaac Haines rifle with a swamped barrel. OMG. I was hooked on
the Lancasters & the swamped barrels & have since them. But that is just me.
Doesn't matter What it is, What you envision, What it Looks Like, What others shoot. IF it
don't fit YOU it will never fit & never be comfortable, and that is aggravating.
Find the one that Fits & be happy.
-
I agree. A long time ago, I had a builder make me a long rifle and I told him to make the best of what he liked to make. He made me a very nice looking Lehigh Valley style gun that had a tremedous amount of drop. It looked great, but it was a real challenge to shoot. I adapted my hold and was able to shoot it, standing offhand, but any other position, it was terribly awkward. I loved the gun, and think the builder did a fine job and used top shelf parts etc. The inletting was very tight and the finish was dead on etc... but I grew to hate that thing. Shooting prone was impossible. Any shot that required elevation or declination was awkward... I finally sold it off.
About the same time. I had a buddy cobble together a Jim Chambers PA smoothbore fowler. It was plain jane, and nothing to look at as far as finish, but It fit me perfectly and I actually found that I was able to shoot it more accurately that the rifle. It became my go to hunting gun and it still is to this day.
For a Bess though... I see the wanting to get one historically correct. I have only shot a Pedersoli repro and it checked a lot of boxes for me. It was fun to shoot-- never handled an original, but if it fit me poorly and hung funny... no thanks.
K
-
I'm one of those looking forward to acquiring the upcoming Kibler Brown Bess. Had the opportunity earlier this year to tour the Kibler facility and was awestruck by both the machinery and the personnel. Am also a tad awestruck by some of the contributions to this tread. This forthcoming reproduction is to be but one thing: as true a reproduction (within the strict meaning of the word) of the Pattern of 1756 Long Land King's musket, something, if introduced into a stack of British arms on the Boston Common in 1775, would be undetected. To suggest it be altered to suit current tastes as if buyers are seeking a comfortable arm for an afternoon putting a few score rounds into a 200 yard target, I submit absolutely misses the point of the thing. The standard 'Bess was issued to British troops regardless of the recruit's shape or size; they adjusted to it, not it to them. I'm minded of queuing up to receive our M14 rifles in basic at Leonard Wood in January of 1967. We each received an identical rifle, be we 140 or 240 pound weight, 5 foot six or six foot five. It's a military thing, whether in 1775 or 250 years later. Order this as perhaps the very closest thing to a pristine Pattern 1756 King's musket as art and science can fabricate or, alas, look elsewhere. No object relating to our upcoming semiquincentenial (whew!) will come close to the Kibler 'Bess as something to hand down to coming generations.
-
I'm one of those looking forward to acquiring the upcoming Kibler Brown Bess. Had the opportunity earlier this year to tour the Kibler facility and was awestruck by both the machinery and the personnel. Am also a tad awestruck by some of the contributions to this tread. This forthcoming reproduction is to be but one thing: as true a reproduction (within the strict meaning of the word) of the Pattern of 1756 Long Land King's musket, something, if introduced into a stack of British arms on the Boston Common in 1775, would be undetected. To suggest it be altered to suit current tastes as if buyers are seeking a comfortable arm for an afternoon putting a few score rounds into a 200 yard target, I submit absolutely misses the point of the thing. The standard 'Bess was issued to British troops regardless of the recruit's shape or size; they adjusted to it, not it to them. I'm minded of queuing up to receive our M14 rifles in basic at Leonard Wood in January of 1967. We each received an identical rifle, be we 140 or 240 pound weight, 5 foot six or six foot five. It's a military thing, whether in 1775 or 250 years later. Order this as perhaps the very closest thing to a pristine Pattern 1756 King's musket as art and science can fabricate or, alas, look elsewhere. No object relating to our upcoming semiquincentenial (whew!) will come close to the Kibler 'Bess as something to hand down to coming generations.
And therein lies good personal objective reasoning for owning/shooting a "proper Bess".
My take is but a tad different, as explained prior, but will satisfy both my 18th and 21st century needs.
From Jim's description of his original, and if his replica is rendered to its 1756 spex, we shall all be satisfied musketeers. In my case, for both a reenactor and shooter.
Tally ho, huzzah, huzzah!
-
If I might make a suggestion, if you cannot scrunch your cheek straight down onto the comb & see the breech aligned with the bayonet lug front sight, sneak up on it from below and on the side. Learning to shoot whatever gun you have in your hands, is the goal.
-
If I might make a suggestion, if you cannot scrunch your cheek straight down onto the comb & see the breech aligned with the bayonet lug front sight, sneak up on it from below and on the side. Learning to shoot whatever gun you have in your hands, is the goal.
Yeah, become a contortionist, I don't think so and to each their own.
-
This thread has me quite confused. I thought, in the armed forces, where ever, when ever, the unit armorer would happily make any alteration, customize your issued rifle to personal taste ???
-
This thread has me quite confused. I thought, in the armed forces, where ever, when ever, the unit armorer would happily make any alteration, customize your issued rifle to personal taste ???
Yer thinking is in the wrong century.
-
Since Jim is copying a 1756, it will aim the same as that. Any modifications to the geometry and it won't be a copy. Given soldiers were encouraged to practice marksmanship whenever circumstances allowed, it is possible to learn to aim. The problem I suspect is many try to aim using modern techniques coupled with the myth soldiers just pointed in a general direction and hoped for the best.
Just curious, why do you think the "pointed in a general direction" was a myth? The only reproduction British manual of arms from the period that I've seen had the soldier turning his head to the right when he pulled the trigger to avoid flash from the man standing on his left. Look at a largish skirmish such as Lexington and Concord. Compare the number of casualties to the estimated number of shots fired on both sides and you quickly see that only a small fraction of the shots fired hit anything other than trees and dirt. If "aiming" was considered important the Bess would have been designed as a smooth rifle by simply adding a rear sight, not designed as a musket.
-
Since Jim is copying a 1756, it will aim the same as that. Any modifications to the geometry and it won't be a copy. Given soldiers were encouraged to practice marksmanship whenever circumstances allowed, it is possible to learn to aim. The problem I suspect is many try to aim using modern techniques coupled with the myth soldiers just pointed in a general direction and hoped for the best.
Just curious, why do you think the "pointed in a general direction" was a myth? The only reproduction British manual of arms from the period that I've seen had the soldier turning his head to the right when he pulled the trigger to avoid flash from the man standing on his left.
They turned the head slightly to the right while in the "position of a soldier," before ever manipulating their muskets. This allowed each to keep the man to his right in his peripheral vision for taking his cues. They moved their right foot back to fire for stability, returning to position immediately after. With every man in line shooting in the same direction, flash was unavoidable. Most of it would pass in front of a soldier's face, as everyone's lock was several inches out in front of the line.
Look at a largish skirmish such as Lexington and Concord. Compare the number of casualties to the estimated number of shots fired on both sides and you quickly see that only a small fraction of the shots fired hit anything other than trees and dirt. If "aiming" was considered important the Bess would have been designed as a smooth rifle by simply adding a rear sight, not designed as a musket.
The Americans were not professionals, and many British troops were fresh recruits without much training. Just because soldiers on both sides were inexperienced does not mean aiming was not considered important. It was, for the very reason you cite as not: hitting trees and dirt was a waste of powder and lead, precious commodities on both sides.
This link has more about the British and learning to aim their muskets: https://www.oldfortniagara.org/that-the-men-be-taught-to-take-good-aim-marksmanship-training-in-the-british-army-in-the-18th-century
-
Thank you for the link. I'm always open to new to me information. :)
-
Hi,
As Tumbledown wrote, the British valued marksmanship and particularly so as the 18th century progressed and after experience fighting in America. They had soldiers shooting at marks and they often selected the best marksmen to join the light infantry units. Bailey has a chapter on marksmanship in his book "Small Arms of the British Forces in America". It is worth the read. The British army began to realize toward the latter half of the 18th century that their most effective fire was when soldiers were allowed to fire at will rather than on command. First, it allowed the soldier to aim and fire when on target not when commanded and second, there was not the dense cloud of smoke making each successive volley less effective because they could not see anything. I have built and shot every pattern of British musket from the first pattern 1730 to the short land pattern 1769. I can shoot offhand a 5" group at 70-85 yards with any of them using a patched round ball or bare ball loaded on top of a wad and a card on top to secure it. This is despite the fact that none fit me well. I cannot do that with the Pedersoli and Miroku repros because the trigger pulls are insanely heavy and the locks are not nearly as good as those I make. In fact, they are pathetic.
dave
-
I can shoot offhand a 5" group at 70-85 yards with any of them using a patched round ball or bare ball loaded on top of a wad and a card on top to secure it. This is despite the fact that none fit me well. I cannot do that with the Pedersoli and Miroku repros because the trigger pulls are insanely heavy and the locks are not nearly as good as those I make. In fact, they are pathetic.
dave
Dave, that's quite remarkable.
-
Hi,
As Tumbledown wrote, the British valued marksmanship and particularly so as the 18th century progressed and after experience fighting in America. They had soldiers shooting at marks and they often selected the best marksmen to join the light infantry units. Bailey has a chapter on marksmanship in his book "Small Arms of the British Forces in America". It is worth the read. The British army began to realize toward the latter half of the 18th century that their most effective fire was when soldiers were allowed to fire at will rather than on command. First, it allowed the soldier to aim and fire when on target not when commanded and second, there was not the dense cloud of smoke making each successive volley less effective because they could not see anything. I have built and shot every pattern of British musket from the first pattern 1730 to the short land pattern 1769. I can shoot offhand a 5" group at 70-85 yards with any of them using a patched round ball or bare ball loaded on top of a wad and a card on top to secure it. This is despite the fact that none fit me well. I cannot do that with the Pedersoli and Miroku repros because the trigger pulls are insanely heavy and the locks are not nearly as good as those I make. In fact, they are pathetic.
dave
Most excellent shooting, Dave!
What's your entire load each, for patched or bare?
-
Is Kibler planning on making a new style lock for it? Or was he going to use the same as the fowler?
Would assume it will be an accurare Land Pattern stock. He's pretty detailed oriented.
-
This thread has me quite confused. I thought, in the armed forces, where ever, when ever, the unit armorer would happily make any alteration, customize your issued rifle to personal taste ???
Yer thinking is in the wrong century.
I was being sarcastic ;D
-
As Jim said on page one, he will copy the original p. 1756 in his care in every detail including the lock, although he may alter some markings on said lock.
-
Hi,
On a different forum, I suggested to Jim that the lock should just have "TOWER" and no date on the tail of the lock. The reason is that contractor names and dates were no longer engraved after 1764. If his kit is to represent a gun used in the American war by British and patriot forces it should just have Tower or Dublin Castle on the plate indicating it was made after 1764. Some long lands used by Patriot forces could be older guns made before that date but not likely with British troops. So just having Tower on it satisfies use for both British and patriot forces during the Rev War. It would really be a plus if Jim could offer a choice of Tower or Dublin Castle on the lock when you order the kit. So many of the British regiments that arrived early in the war were armed by the Irish establishment.
dave
-
"Dublin Castle" = excellent!
-
If anyone knows for sure, please advise what the diameter of the ball used and what powder charge in the issue ctgs.?
-
If anyone knows for sure, please advise what the diameter of the ball used and what powder charge in the issue ctgs.?
Dave will have all the proper details but for the most part Bess bore's ranged mostly around .75 but could go upwards to .80 (as I have read), thus a .69 ball was mostly used with a .75 bore, as we do today.
I believe the early on Brit Bess cartridges were well upward of 165 grains due to the lesser potent gunpowder of the 18th century, but amended lower in the 19th century as powder making processes got better with increased potency.
-
If anyone knows for sure, please advise what the diameter of the ball used and what powder charge in the issue ctgs.?
Hi Daryl,
The standard British cartridge for the Brown Bess included a 0.69 caliber ball and 165 grains of 1F or 2FF black powder. Loading procedure was you opened the cartridge with your teeth, primed the pan with at least 10 grains of the powder from the cartridge and closed the pan cover, then poured the rest of the powder down the barrel and stuffed the paper wrapped ball behind it. You rammed that down and prepared to present your firelock and fire. I have regiments of reenactors live fire at my range. When they volley fire with historic loads, the universal comment is they can feel the blast in their feet.
dave
-
165 gains of modern black powder, even if coarse 1F, down the tube and under a .69 ball is beyond insane!
-
Thanks David.
The US army, according to "Firearms of the American West", used the same 165gr. powder and a .64 calibre ball in their "roughly" .69cal. muskets.
In 1820 or so, due to the improvement in powder used, the load was reduced to 135gr. As with the post above, the charge included the prime and
was loaded in the same fashion. At some point in the US, the ball diameter was increased to .65, which resulted in double the hits at 100 yards on the
test targets showing improved accuracy. The vel. of the 165gr. charge was said to be 1,700fps, but I do not believe that vel. noted was an accurate one.
-
The Gunpowder used in the AWI was not equivalent in strength to today’s Black Powder. Adjustments in powder volume are often suggested for modern loads.
As a follow-up question, will this kit be including sling swivels?
-
I hear about folks complaining about the impossibility of aimed fire with a Bess or other types of smoothbores, but we [ our local group] don't have any trouble hitting what we aim at . I had many conversations with Paul Daiute about this. First...I don't and never have "aimed down the barrel "
Practice will show you the correct sight picture you need, and then it's all about repeating the cheek contact until it's second nature. Your eye is the rear sight so I focus on the front sight alone, and doing contortions isn't ever an issue.
-
Hi Bob,
That is certainly right and after the great improvements made in powder at the turn of the 18th/19th centuries, much smaller charges can be used. We find that 80-90 grains of 2F work well from repro Besses with patched round ball. We also have success with the same charge of powder with a felt wad, then bare ball, and then tow or a thin wad on top. Unfortunately, after having built an elegant and well fitted English fowler for myself, shooting a Bess is fun as a curiosity but it does not compare. I recently used the fowler on a woods walk. I had not shot it in a while and was trying to reacquaint myself with the sight picture and not doing all that well. Then I remembered "don't over think it". Just shoulder the gun, place the front sight on your target and shoot. I hit everything after that. No need to think about sight picture because that is automatically accounted for by the fit of the gun.
dave
-
Dave- I can’t agree with you more about “aiming”! Often times when I invite a fellow muzzleloader to shoot my Fusil de Chasse (or my smoothbore pistol), they ask “How do you aim it?” I proverbially scratch my head and can’t really describe it to them.
I find the same way shooting clay pigeons with that gun. It just comes naturally and I seldom miss.
I think shooting my FdC is a lot more fun than my rifles.