old vs. new kits, plus features....

[Sparkitoff]

Hello:

I am seriously considering a kit to build or the purchase of an assembled rifle. The first that come to mind are Kibler or Chambers. A few shooters how at least talk like they "know it all" have told me the "old" locks and barrels are inferior to the "new" locks and barrels. Is there something to that?  Would it be prudent to purchase a "new" kit or rifle built from one as opposed to an "old" one?  I'm not even sure there is something new, however these guys are convinced there is, so I want to be sure. I know this forum will tell me the real deal. 
Looking at a .54 flint for hunting in particular, if that makes a difference.

Thanks.

[Kevin]

Greetings Sparkitoff,

"I'm not even sure there is something new" - The Kiblers have recently started making their own locks, via CNC machinery.  That might be the "something new" others were referring to.

Take Care,
Kevin

[Dave Marsh]

I would guess that in the case of the Kibler Colonial Kit the old they referred to is the kit with the Chambers lock in it which is a fine kit and lock.  The new probably is the Colonial Kit with the new Kibler lock replacing the Chambers.  That would be my guess.  You can't go wrong with either.  I have the "old" which is a fine rifle.  Barrels are all Rice and just different calibers.    Also, Chambers kits are said to be good kits as well but require more skill then the Kibler.  Just my humble opinion and I don't know anything...….but know it alls sure do know it all.

Dave

[smylee grouch]

Good advice so far and if you want the style of gun Kibler makes buy it. I think you have more choice,s with chambers and some others but you probably will need to do a little more gunsmithing which a lot of people enjoy any way.

[EC121]

Sounds to me like the "know it alls" don't know much.  It really depends on how much work you want to do on a kit or what style you want.  Some kits are more basic than others.  The "new" locks are made using new technology and may need less set up work, but in the end they are all flintlocks that need the operator to do his part. 
     As far as any difference in old and new barrels, that is just baloney.  Once again operator input is the deciding factor.

[Sparkitoff]

...and I guess these particular rifle (Kibler or Chambers) do not have a patent breach.....?

[smallpatch]

Nope! Neither one.  Part of the reason they work so well.

[stikshooter]

Kibler definitely is improving on older kits ,not even a close call/Ed

[Scota4570]

I have assembled two "old" Kibler colonials and two SMR rifles.  All four shoot very accurately.  All of the locks function perfectly.  The wood to metal fit is near perfection as sold.  They are certainly good enough for any reasonable expectation. 

The new locks are big deal because they are done via CNC and are held to closer tolerances, better design,  and finished even better.  Jim Kibler is obsessive about continuous improvement.  Taking in house control over lock quality makes it possible for him to make a lock that is the highest quality mass produce lock made today. 

I would not hesitate to buy an older kit.  I plan to buy some new kits in the future.  You can not go wrong either way. 

[MuskratMike]

This is a great question but a "no brainier". Chambers or Kibler and you will be a happy camper Jim Kibler is now producing his own locks that should be fantastic. Either way you can't go wrong if you take your time next build it right.

[WKevinD]

I've had both new and old Kiblers in my shop, they are the same. The lock is in my opinion a close copy of a Chambers but is all CNC fabricated, is that better? I don't know. I am a Chambers lock user for most all my builds, they function well, customer service is terrific and they are less expensive. Chambers kits allow you to build if thats important to you, Kibler kits allow you to assemble.
The guns that we emulate had locks that were all hand made, hand assembled and some are of a quality that are not capable of being copied today.
The end result with any of these kits is that you end up with a gun that you have sweat equity in.

Kevin

[Bill Raby]

It all comes down to how much work you want to do. Everything that I have heard is that the Kibler kits are excellent quality and easy to assemble. Problem with the Kibler kits is that Mr. Kibler got to do all the fun parts! A Kibler kit will go together in a few weekends. One of the old kits will take a few months. Don't give the price of a Kibler kit a second thought. The old kits cost less, but by the time you buy tools you will have a lot more more money into it. It depends on how big of a project you want. I build from blanks because I WANT to do all the work on it and don't care how long it takes.

[alacran]

If hunting with this gun is what you have in mind, I have a couple of questions. What part of the country do you live in? Does the type of hunting you do involve carrying the gun for many hours and miles?
If the answer to the second question is yes, get the Kibler Colonial in .58 caliber. In my opinion it is a bit on the heavy side in .54.

[Waksupi]

They may have been talking about Chambers doing a bit of redesign on the Siler locks to make the geometry better. In general he does some of the best geometry you can get on a lock,  although I have also ran into broken springs and a cock on them. Just some metallurgy that needs worked out on their end.

[Dphariss]

Hello:

I am seriously considering a kit to build or the purchase of an assembled rifle. The first that come to mind are Kibler or Chambers. A few shooters how at least talk like they "know it all" have told me the "old" locks and barrels are inferior to the "new" locks and barrels. Is there something to that?  Would it be prudent to purchase a "new" kit or rifle built from one as opposed to an "old" one?  I'm not even sure there is something new, however these guys are convinced there is, so I want to be sure. I know this forum will tell me the real deal. 
Looking at a .54 flint for hunting in particular, if that makes a difference.

Thanks.

What are you going the hunt and where? 54 is probably the best choice if you must have a caliber over 50. I have hunted with 50-54-58 cals. I don't see any difference in the 54 and 58. And the 50 works just fine on deer. If you need more power that the 54 I would go to 62. But the recoil gets to be a factor. So unless hunting in an area frequented by Gbears I would go with a 50-54. While everyone likes to think the early rifles were large bores an actual study of surviving RIFLES shows this may not be the case. Couple it with the comments of Hanger and J.J. Henry and the bore size shrinks to 44-50 in most cases. Yes there were larger bore rifle made but I think they were greatly in the minority. There are other quotes on bore size I have been told about one concerning bore sizes compared to berrys. But I don't see this as being of a lot of use....
Dan