RCA 42

[Jim Kibler]

This is a rifle I made a few years ago.  Don't think I've shown any pictures of it before.  The photos were pretty dark and I lightened them, but they look a little washed out now.  Oh well...  This is of course a pretty close copy of RCA 42.  This is what would be considered a "bench copy".  The lock and triggers are custom made.  Wallace cast the mounts for this project off patterns he made from the original.  I'll get better photos someday and maybe post those.  Any questions or comments, go for it!

[Mike Gahagan]

Beautiful work as usual,Jim!

[jamesthomas]

 Yes, Very nice!! too bad the lock is on the wrong side!

[KLMoors]

Very pretty work Jim. Thanks for the pics.

[heinz]

Jim, having seen that rifle in person I agree that it is even better than these photographs.  An exceptionally fine piece of work. I believe that building a bench copy, or even a close interpretation, is very informative to the builder on the fine points of the "school" and possible origin of the gun.  Would you care to share your opinion of the possible geographic origins of number 42?

[rich pierce]

As I recall, it's a pretty hefty rifle that would really be suitable for accurate shooting with that architecture and set triggers.  Interesting that the original is rather smaller caliber than we might suspect; IIRC around .48 or so.  I had opportunities to handle the original and this one, and both are exceptional.

Where it was made is always a great hot stove topic, but will be forever unknown with certainty, as it's an unsigned rifle.  For me, it's a Moravian rifle of the pre-Revolutionary War period and has features that tie it closely to what appear to be subsequent rifles in both Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  It was certainly the work of a master and seems not to be Albrecht or Oerter based on little carving signatures.  There are few makers of the period with lots of surviving rifles attributed to them.  I think EK uncovered a later Pennsylvania rifle he called a "twin" with carving signatures that are hard to ignore.  Whoever made it seems to have left a strong impression on other builders of his day as well as us.

[pathfinder]

i would venture to say this is a perfect example of a classical strong longrifle. Absolutely beautiful in every respect. Outstanding work,as usual Jim!

I do have a question,may have been discussed in the past,and I may ask in a new thread,concerning "bench" copies. 

I dint have RCA in front of me now,but I will this evening,so I cant comment specifically to this gun,(which is AWSOME!),but how close to the original does the "new" piece have to be to qualify as a "bench" copy.

The reason I ask is because I've seen "bench" copies of item's that had some fairly significant differences between it and the original. IE;1/2"more drop or the trigger guard grip rail is shorter,nose cap longer,etc.

Like I said,I'm not referring to this gun,but bench copies in general.

@!*%,this gun is really nice! The more I look at it,the more I like it!

Thank's!

[Robby]

Wow!!! One of my all time favorites, and now yours too!!! Wow!!!
Robby

[Cory Joe Stewart]

I have had such lust in my heart for that rifle ever since I first saw it in the book.  Great work.

Coryjoe

[Long John]

It didn't take me long to decide to save those photos!

Beautiful work!  You did that awesome riflegun justice!

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[Jim Kibler]

Thank you everybody.  I didn't have any great revelations from the building process and there are certainly others more qualified to speak towards the attribution of this piece.  I did find some small details of the carving interesting and similar some William Antes work.  Not sure this means much though.  I'll try to get some photos together showing this.  It may have been discussed before when this stuff was being hashed over.  As to "bench copies", it's just a word or name and doesn't mean much.  Things like this I don't spend much time pondering over.  Thanks again guys.  Any questions just ask.


Jim

[Tom Currie]

Jim, Your work is very impressive as always. A quick personal thought on RCA 42, I always thought the sideplate sort of lacks the style of the rest of the rifle. Also interesting that the box lid and side plate are unengraved.

[bgf]

Jim,
That is spectacular.  I have my own wishful thinking about #42, but it really doesn't matter -- it is a solid rifle, wherever it was built and whoever built it.  I'm impressed by the way you respected the original even in what many would consider minor details, though we all know you can and have gone your own way in a credible fashion as well.  Probably odd, but the thing I'm most impressed by is how well you did the incise carving.  I would think relief carving would be the hardest to do, but it is modern incise carving that more often disappoints me; I guess it is a matter of when you have nothing but lines to work with, those lines have to be almost flawless both in terms of composition and in execution.  I might also say the same about brass without engraving -- you did it so well that it doesn't look unfinished. 

Do you find this kind of work harder or less enjoyable than doing a more personal/modern interpretation of the longrifle?  Did you pick this rifle to copy or was it picked for you?

[Telgan]

I saw it in the white - Nice to see it fully finnished up. Thanks for putting up the photos - More would be great.

[Jim Kibler]

Yeah, the brass sideplate and box look a little plain to my eye as well, but it is what it is. 

As far as incised carving goes, I like to stab in with chisels and gouges and then use a knife, or skew chisel as a knife, to trim the sides to create the V-shape.  You must carefully watch the grain, but with this method, I think some pretty nice results can be obtained.  I learned this method from a class with Wallace.  With this said, the incised work on the original, particularly on the box side appears to have been done with a V-tool.  Now, this is not to say good work can't be obtained with a V-tool as well. 

Copying work is both easier and more difficult at the same time.  You don't have to decide what to do, but have to make it the same as something else.  Guess it's just different.  A lot can be learned, but it has it's drawbacks as well.  It's nice to create something new and different.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Jim

[bp]

Jim:

Beautiful work.  Very crisp.
I noticed you changed the cock from that pictured in RCA.  Do you suspect the cock in the pictured lock was replaced? The one on your rifle seems better proportioned, to my eye  anyhow. 

More pictures please.

[bama]

I had the pleasure of being in the class with Jim at WKU where Wallace had #42 completely tore down so we could examine every detail. What a fantastic opportunity, a once in a lifetime opportunity. I was very impressed with Jim's fine attention to detail while working on his copy. It was a real pleasure to work with Jim. I have not finished my copy as of this date but I can only hope that it turns half as good as Jim's.

I had the pleasure of holding Jim's finished copy and it is as close to the original as you can get. Great work Jim! See you at WKU.

[flintriflesmith]

Some more specs on the original:
48 caliber and it appears to never have been freshed because there places in the bore where the square bit (final reaming process) still show

rifled one turn in 37.5 inches--not a typo, it is really rifled with a twist used on many short barrel Jeagers

ramrod is one of the very very few that seems to be original with a brass wiper bottom--rod appears to have been stained with nitric

Gary

[Jim Kibler]

bpotter,

The cock on the original is surely a replacement.  I've seen one or two others that looked like it as well.  One was on one of the English "Lancaster" rifles.  After looking at the photos of the lock after all this time has passed, I think it's pretty decent, but maybe a touch too big at the base.  Time passes and your eye improves I guess....

Bama,

It was a fun time working with you as well!  I remember some late evenings in the basement classroom at WKU.

Gary mentioned the brass wiper tip.  Just to clarify, this is on the exposed end of the rod and is the same length as the nosecap.  It's a sleeve made by bending brass and soldering or silver brazing the seam.  I'm pretty sure the exposed end of the ramrod is dished out a bit inside the sleeve to fit over a ball well.  Pretty neat.  The copy I made had a barrel rifled one turn in 36 or 37 inches, can't remember exactly.  I'm no fantastic shot, but it seemed to perform well when I shot it.


Jim

[B Shipman]

Really a difficult and exceptional project extremely well done.

I'd say a bench copy is one that's made with the original in hand with the object of capturing the original. A documentory copy is one that's made with the object of duplicating the original exactly.

[Shreckmeister]

It speaks to me in volumes. It's Christmas eve. Not too late to box it and ship to me. Your work is exceptional. Taking any apprentices?