Suggestion for Jim Kibler

[Frank]

There are a lot of guys out there like me who need a length of pull shorter than what is on your rifles, especially during the colder months. A gun that is fine in the summer is not as easy to shoot in the winter/hunting season when we have a lot of heavy clothing on.

Not sure how difficult it would be to set up for a custom length of pull. I realize that there would be an extra charge and longer lead times on delivery. I for one would love to have a 13 inch length of pull. Would there be sufficient demand to have this variable on your rifles? Don't know and putting this out there to on the forum for input and comment.

Thanks for your consideration.

[oldtravler61]

  Frank that is a good question. When I build a rifle. That is what I make mine. But like most modern guns I think Jim is looking at a general population an maybe went by an average..?   Oldtravler

[Notchy Bob]

There are a lot of guys out there like me who need a length of pull shorter than what is on your rifles, especially during the colder months.

Frank,

I guess I am one of the guys like you.  I am about 5'6", and a length of pull over thirteen and a half inches is too long, even with summer-weight clothes.  A LOP of 13" would be ideal for me.

I have ordered a few custom guns.  Individual builders have been pretty good about accommodating a shorter LOP.  I think the problem, as I believe you are suggesting, is with the machine made stocks.  I am sure resetting the machine would be a pain.  However, as the quality of precarved stocks is improving, especially with CNC technology, kits made with these stocks become more appealing.

So, I don't know if it would be feasible, but it sure would be great if the precision precarved stocks could be offered with a shorter LOP option.  I think 13" would be reasonable.

Notchy Bob

[t.caster]

A good smithy should be able to move the butt plate forward on a kit gun as needed. The tang would need narrowing to match the stock taper, but most plates have enough brass thickness to do this.

[Scota4570]

Moving the butplate forward is not difficult.  Just think ahead and work slowly if you have not done it before.  Use the line of the top part and extend it forward.  Use the new top flat to align the butplate and scribe the new position of the curve.  Or, use a compass to draw the amount to cut on the curve.  Kep the compass paralled ot he top flat when you scribe.  Cut a bit long.  Spot the butplate in.  A very fine rasp  will work well.  Always cut toward the middle of the stock to prevent chipping the surface.  Trim the bottom of the butplate to match the stock.  Use a transfer punch to locate the screw holes. 

IF Jim were to offer a shorter stock the  butplate would be different.  The stock would not only be shorter but the outside of the stock and possibly the cheekpiece would  have to be changed.  I speculate that par of the reason he can turn out kits in a cot effective way is the lack of custom options, kind of like Ford model T's. 

Speculation, He does offer to assemble the kit for an additional fee.  I bet he could shorten the stock but it would be for an additional fee.  Call him and see, he is great about answering the phone.  I bet Jim or Katherine could answer this. 

Funny, I am 5'10 and 240#.  My shoulders are large.  I found his LOP to be short at first.  I now find it extremely comfortable.  I have shortened other rifles to match the Kibler rifles. 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Simply moving the butt plate forward is not the answer.  You end up with a buttstock that is narrower from top to bottom, and have to cut away the part of the plate that hangs down below the toe line.  This interferes with the pleasing architecture of a rifle.  Jim would have to create a new design/pattern...like making another kit.

[jerrywh]

Taylor is correct and you will have to move the cheek piece forward . That is not an easy chore and still be able to maintain the correct architecture.

[Jim Kibler]

Frank,

Thanks for the suggestion.  I'd like to make a rifle between our mountain rifle and colonial in terms of size.  I'm thinking something with a breech of about an inch or perhaps a tiny bit more.  Maybe a barrel around 40 inches and a little less pull than is on our other rifles.  This would max out at 50 caliber and probably weigh around 7.5 pounds I'm guessing.  It would probably be brass mounted and have more golden age styling.  This sort of a rifle should work really well for a lot of people.  I'm not sure how soon we'll get to this as we have some other projects in line as well. 

I think a fowling piece will be our next long gun.  I'd like to make a super duper full blown English gun from the 1750's to 1760's.  I want to find a top notch original and more or less copy it.  There's not much to improve on with a gun like this.  I'd also like to do a plains or Hawken rifle kit as well.  I think this would be pretty well received.

Right now we're deep into lock work.  The Ketland style import lock is coming along well.  Probably another 6-8 weeks until they're ready.  We're super excited about these.  They should be a fantastic lock.  After this I'll be working on a waterproof pan version of this lock and perhaps a left-handed version if there is enough interest.  Then I'll start working on a Germanic style lock which were so commonly used in this country. 

If I can get this lock work done and maybe a fowler kit done by this time next year I'll be doing pretty good.  Lots to do!

All the best,
Jim

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
I think doing a English fowler would be great and I know you and Katherine would get it right. You mentioned 1750-1760s, which I assume means you intend to use your round-faced lock.  Every kit maker today who offers an "English fowler" (and the quotes are intended) are based on the same basic plan with a round-faced lock.  However the best British fowlers during the latter part of your period had flat-faced locks and the best fowlers with round-faced locks during the early part of your period usually had humped standing breeches, something no modern kit offers. I vote to choose one (or both) directions to make a kit that out classes all the others with respect to architecture.

dave       

[skullcap]

I am excited to hear of the English Fowler.     I have mention to Katherine very resently  and few times in the last year.  I would hope the Fowler would have a barrel 46” 48” long.  And of a Fowler weight.   No one makes a barrel in 20 that is a Fowler weight barrel  other than the custom order.  All thick wall at muzzle.     Rick

[Scota4570]

A fowler that could use modern 12 ga wads and federally compliant shot would be more useful to those who might choose to hunt with it.

[R.J.Bruce]

I am excited to hear of the English Fowler.     I have mention to Katherine very resently  and few times in the last year.  I would hope the Fowler would have a barrel 46” 48” long.  And of a Fowler weight.   No one makes a barrel in 20 that is a Fowler weight barrel  other than the custom order.  All thick wall at muzzle.     Rick

Jason at Rice Barrels has been making thin wall 4140 CM steel 20 gauge and 16 gauge barrels for a while now, but they are not that well known. They also top out at 42" long, although everything else is available up to 48" long.

The 4140 steel would allow Rice to fabricate a 12 gauge barrel that is historically accurate in quantity for a Kibler kit that should be capable of handling modern 12 gauge ( or 20 gauge ) plastic non-toxic 3" wads, lined with a mylar wrap, and with a load of sphero-tungsten shot that would allow for waterfowl hunting with a flintlock muzzleloader.

Within reason!

R.J.Bruce

[Frank]

Thanks Jim for the insight into your future plans. All very exciting. I don't know much about CNC programming and thought it may have been as simple as a couple of keystrokes to change length of pull before you started carving the stock.

I have your Colonial rifle as well as the Mountain rifle. The Colonial is difficult to shoot well offhand because of the length of pull. The Mountain Rifle not so much. Looking forward to the rifle you mentioned with the shorter pull that is down the road.

Thank you to everyone else for all your comments.

[John Shaw]

On the other side of the coin, since I'm now doing most of my shooting in Southern Arizona I'd like a 14" length of pull. I'm 6'1" and shooting in shirtsleeves which makes a big difference. Length of pull is probably the hardest stock dimension to get right due to shooting in different weather with different clothes. Having built quite a few rifles over the years I'd have to say that Kiblers 13 5/8" is the best compromise for me and is what I've used the most. You wouldn't think that 3/8" would make much difference but it does.

JS

[G_T]

With my SMR I relocated the buttplate forward and down a touch. Of course reshaping the buttstock was required afterwards. It's not all that hard, since there isn't any opening for a patchbox cut in!

Jim, a possibly simpler solution to accomodate other LOP for the Colonial might be to not cut in the patchbox recess, and leave extra wood behind the cheekpiece and farther back on the buttstock. Leave inletting the buttplate and the patchbox, to the person purchasing the kit. It is easier to alter the geometry a bit if there is extra wood front/back of the cheekpiece, and in the rear. Depending on how your CNC code is set up, that MIGHT not be too difficult a change. Of course it requires more tools and skill on the part of the builder.

Gerald

[Jim Kibler]

With my SMR I relocated the buttplate forward and down a touch. Of course reshaping the buttstock was required afterwards. It's not all that hard, since there isn't any opening for a patchbox cut in!

Jim, a possibly simpler solution to accomodate other LOP for the Colonial might be to not cut in the patchbox recess, and leave extra wood behind the cheekpiece and farther back on the buttstock. Leave inletting the buttplate and the patchbox, to the person purchasing the kit. It is easier to alter the geometry a bit if there is extra wood front/back of the cheekpiece, and in the rear. Depending on how your CNC code is set up, that MIGHT not be too difficult a change. Of course it requires more tools and skill on the part of the builder.

Gerald

Leaving more for the customer to do isn't an option.  We're always moving in the direction of making a more complete product.  Things that might seem easy to some are far from that for others.  Our success is in part built on the precision and ease with which our kits are able to be assembled.  Personally, I think pull is overblown.  We've of course had people not interested in our product because it didn't meet their pull requirement.  I think sometimes people get stuck on things...  But in the end we're here to try and  please the customer and sell product. 

As mentioned a lighter rifle, sort of between our mountain rifle and colonial would be a good offering.  A slightly shorter pull on this would work well and might help those of smaller stature.

Jim

[moleeyes36]

I think a fowling piece will be our next long gun.  I'd like to make a super duper full blown English gun from the 1750's to 1760's.  I want to find a top notch original and more or less copy it.  There's not much to improve on with a gun like this.

If I can get this lock work done and maybe a fowler kit done by this time next year I'll be doing pretty good.  Lots to do!

All the best,
Jim

Jim,

Any thoughts on whether or not your planned Fowler will be offered in 20 gauge?  As someone who always shot more round balls than shot in a smooth bore, the smaller amounts of powder and lead required, not to mention considerably less recoil, of a 20 gauge over a 12 is nice.

Mole Eyes

[Frank]

Yes Jim, length of pull is over blown unless it is way to long. A short length of pull is never a problem.

I am a 13 and 1/2 inch length of pull and have shot rifles with a length of pull as short as 10 and 1/2 inches with no problem.

I have difficulty with a 13 and 3/4 especially with heavy clothing

[Mick C]

Since we are on the subject of suggestions, I wish there was a way to get the SMR kit without the buttplate and nose cap. A true poorboy rifle.