Bucks County Rifle Kit options/recommendations?

[Cossack]

I'm thinking of trying my hand at a kit build,for the first time. I might end up doing a fowler, since I already have a small bore and a big game rifle. However, I really like Bucks County guns and might very well want to do that if I can find a suitable kit. I'd want a swamped barrel, 42-44", probably in the lightest weight I can find in .40-.50 cal. The most commonly recommended kit makers for beginner - Kibler and Chambers - don't offer a BC option. Here's what I've seen:

Pecatonica has a Verner pattern.
Sitting Fox has a Verner and a Dubbs pattern - the Verner is a bit more attractive to me, although I like them both.
TOW has a BC precarve and kit option - only with straight barrel options. I want a swamped barrel.
Muzzleloader Builder's Supply has a BC/Verner pattern
Tip Curtis has his Jacob Dubbs pattern and an attractive Bucks County pattern, which reminded me of RCA #65. Tip himself said he didn't recommend his kits for beginners.

I'd be interested to know any thoughts about these offerings or alternative suggestions. I suppose if anyone has anything very critical to say about any of these kit options or businesses, I'd be interested to hear it, but it might be more appropriate to send it in a PM.
I have very little fine woodwork experience, so I should be considered a beginner in all aspects.
I'm in no hurry, and will need to take some time to set aside money.

[Frank]

Knob Mountain has Bucks county precarve stocks inletted for swamped or straight barrels. I have gotten 2 stocks from them and they are excellent.

http://knobmountainmuzzleloading.com/stocks.html

[oldtravler61]

  Cossack I have built several kits. T.C., Traditions , CVA, TIM an one Chambers kit. In my opinion for a beginner the Kibler Colonial is the one you want. It is by far the most beginner friendly kit on the market. 2nd would be the Jim Chambers kit. But it takes quite a bit more skill but not as demanding as some of the others do.
  Remember always. You get what you pay for.  Oldtravler

[rich pierce]

If I recall the Knob Mountain stocks are from Fred Miller who took them directly off originals.  I know nothing else about those kits.  If a person is average sized, most kits can work well.  With certain outfits one can ask to not have this or that pre-inletted, allowing some more customization. 

OldTraveler, yes, the Kibler’s kits are amazing quality and an incredible value but I’d not try to make a Verner or a Weiker or a Schuler from the Kibler Colonial Rifle kit.

[Mauser06]

That was a Tip Curtis Dubb's built by "bowkill". I really like the gun. It makes a heck a nice smooth rifle. 62cal Colerain smooth bore.  It started as a Colerain turkey choke which I had reamed out and jug choked so I can shoot shot or round balls. Couple deer and a couple spring gobblers and a mess of squirrels have fallen to it.   


I don't see what'd make it any more difficult than anything else...aside from the long return on the buttplate. Those are known to be slightly more difficult..


I have NO idea what it looked like before it was finished.  But the finished product makes a nice smooth rifle setup.

[Mr. Bubbles]

Fred Lehto here is the expert on Bucks, or, has built the most of them.  He will likely have something to say.  Like all gun styles, the best thing to do is thorough research first.

[oldtravler61]

   Rich your absolutely correct. Cossacks bucks county slipped right thru my brain cells on my post. Just was offering an opinion on the better kits out there. My humble apologies.    Oldtravler

[rich pierce]

Ha, some folks have compared my mind to a sieve.

[David Rase]

Cossack,
If is a fowler you decide on you can't go wrong with Jim Chambers PA Fowler.  Handles well, looks great and is of high quality!
David

[Cossack]

Thanks all. I've enjoyed Fred Lehto's photos of his rifles and admired Ron Luckenbill's site as well.

I'm interested in making a historically plausible gun that replicates the feel and basic features of the school, but am not above indulging a little "fantasy." For example, the side-opening patchbox is commonly associated with Buck County, but I've seen at least one historical example with an end-opening patchbox (I might possibly pursue that option), and think a BC rifle might look very handsome with a sliding wood patchbox even though (to my knowledge) there are no known historical examples of this, and so I would consider that option as well because it still seems plausible to me (If people who know better than me don't find it plausible, I'd love to hear so and why not).

So while I won't be as much of a stickler as some, I'd still like to do what i can towards doing it right. I would likely want to modify or substitute components as I am able. I would probably at least try to fabricate a proper entry thimble and maybe a side-opening patchbox.

On, say, the Sitting Fox Verner kit (K-55), which components are most glaringly not correct?

[flinchrocket]

Have you seen this http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=6888.0

[Ky-Flinter]

Gentlemen,

This is a good and informative thread.  Please stay on topic and don't wander off into discussions of chokes and loads, or other topics, in this thread.  I have split out the choke/load discussion and have moved it over to Black Powder Shooting.  Here's a link to the choke/load discussion.  http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=50842.0 

Thanks.  I'm watching this thread with great interest as I have a Bucks County build about third in line.

-Ron
ALR Moderator

[moleeyes36]

Thanks all. I've enjoyed Fred Lehto's photos of his rifles and admired Ron Luckenbill's site as well.

I'm interested in making a historically plausible gun that replicates the feel and basic features of the school, but am not above indulging a little "fantasy." For example, the side-opening patchbox is commonly associated with Buck County, but I've seen at least one historical example with an end-opening patchbox (I might possibly pursue that option), and think a BC rifle might look very handsome with a sliding wood patchbox even though (to my knowledge) there are no known historical examples of this, and so I would consider that option as well because it still seems plausible to me (If people who know better than me don't find it plausible, I'd love to hear so and why not).

So while I won't be as much of a stickler as some, I'd still like to do what i can towards doing it right. I would likely want to modify or substitute components as I am able. I would probably at least try to fabricate a proper entry thimble and maybe a side-opening patchbox.

On, say, the Sitting Fox Verner kit (K-55), which components are most glaringly not correct?

Cossack,

If I recall correctly, Ron Luckenbill did come across a Bucks County rifle with a wooden patch box and posted something on it here a year or two ago.  If my failing memory is correct, perhaps Ron will see this threat and confirm or squash the wooden patch box thing.

Mole Eyes

[Ky-Flinter]

Mole Eyes,

Is this the post that you referenced?  http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32913

-Ron

[moleeyes36]

Mole Eyes,

Is this the post that you referenced?  http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32913

-Ron

Ron,

Yes, that is the post.  It's four years old, longer than I thought.  Time really flies when you get older.  It's a excellent discussion that contains a treasure trove of information on the evolution of some early longrifles.  Thanks for resurrecting it.

Mole Eyes

[Cossack]

Can anyone name specific historically incorrect components in any of the above mentioned kits and possible substitute components (and sources) that would be more correct?

[Mike Lyons]

My experience with kits is that some of the parts may or may not be exactly what you want or correct for your rifle.   You don’t have to buy the parts that you think are incorrect.   They basically add each and every part up and charge you the total.  If you go the kit route,  you could probably find the precarve, lock and barrel you like and then be specific on what parts you want.