Do we desire a Kibler Hawken kit?

[heinz]

Herb, great set of posts on the Hawken! Thanks!

[borderdogs]

I built my first Hawken from a kit back in the late 70's and I didn't build another one for nearly 40 years. I was inspired to build my next Hawken by Herb. It was a full stock flint. The one I am finishing now is a full stock .54 percussion. My next build will be a Hawken too. Thanks Herb for all the detailed posts, pictures, and the great hunting pictures and stories.
Rob

[L Meadows]

I have no need for a Hawken, but I would like to see the SMR offered in percussion like the Whitson shown on his website that Jim’s used for inspiration for his SMR.

[hermdog]

I'd be one of the first to sign up for a Kibler SMR with a percussion lock. Come on Jim, you can make a quality percussion lock to fit your SMR.

[Taylorz1]

I have seen and held a handful of “real Hawkens”. A couple full stocks and a few halfstocks. Only one was the “11# beast” described by some here. The rest were all around 8-9# and balanced wonderfully. I think a late halfstock percussion Hawken would be a great seller. People like these as hunting guns. The few custom Hawken builders out there seem to keep a long waiting list and places like track of the wolf are consistently sold out of Hawken componenets. I vote for a Kibler Hawken kit to recreate something like the Robideaux Hawken.

[JPK]

Kibler's Colonial rifle isn't branded as any one makers work. A Hawken's needn't be an exact copy of one rifle, if he offered a rifle of this type I would buy it although my hiking over the mountains is VERY limited these days. I would still like to have a quality mountain rifle. 

[L Meadows]

No need for a Hawken, but I would like to see the SMR offered in percussion like the Whitson shown on his website that Jim’s used for inspiration for his SMR.

I'm sorry, but any bumpkin (or most bumpkins) could convert one of Jim's fine SMR's to percussion. So you're OK with cutting others out of having a halfstock Hawken just to have Mr. Kibler change out a lock for you?

Bumpkin? If it’s as simple as you say then adding it as an option shouldn’t interfere with a Hawken kit!

[WadePatton]

Personally not interested in one. I find older guns more interesting and appealing. I do enjoy Herb's love for recreating authentic Hawken-style guns. He has taught me much about them, as did Mr. House's video on making them, but I don't plan to make or purchase any.

But because of their undying popularity I could see how Jim might do well to offer such.

[alacran]

Hopefully one day I will get to meet Mr. Kibler. I have great admiration for his tooling prowess and his business acumen. However I doubt seriously that I would ever buy one of his kits. I have inspected a couple of his kits before they were assembled. They are really fantastic kits. They are so well engineered that a person would have to be a total dunce to screw them up.
That is the main reason I would never buy one. I like the challenge of building from a stock blank. I like to build guns not assemble them.
If there is a type of rifle I want I will just build it and not wait for some one to come up with a kit.

[Mike Brooks]

If you want a Hawken go to Don Stith. He has the best Hawken kits out there. Doesn't the HAWKEN SHOP sell Hawken kits as well? I would assume so since they freakin call it THE HAWKEN SHOP.....
 I'll not assume to tell Kibler what to make, I'll leave that up to him.

[rich pierce]

If you want a Hawken go to Don Stith. He has the best Hawken kits out there. Doesn't the HAWKEN SHOP sell Hawken kits as well? I would assume so since they freakin call it THE HAWKEN SHOP.....
 I'll not assume to tell Kibler what to make, I'll leave that up to him.

But Mike, if Jim does a Hawken kit, it would be another opportunity to hold classes on how to put one together and finish it.

Regarding the popularity of Kibler kits, with current interest outpacing fine kits by others, I think they may appeal to 2 main groups. One, someone who wants a high quality gun that will rival some custom guns at a fraction of the cost. Two, someone who wants to feel they built a gun but lacks experience and tools to tackle a fine, but not CNC’d kit, let alone a scratch build. Obviously there are going to be a lot more folks who don’t have the confidence or experience to do a scratch build for what they want or a more challenging kit. At ALR some of us “in the bubble of hobby builders” can start to think we are mainstream.

[Ezra]

Zero interest on my part.  Can't wait for the smoothbore, though !

Ditto.

Ez

[snapper]

If I was building kits to sell to the public I would consider having a suitable number of percussion options.

Like it or not, there are more percussion shooters then flint.  This forum is biased towards flintlocks, nothing wrong with that.

Look at the demand for the TC Hawken or GPR.  Now who knows how many of those same people will spend more money for a higher quality rifle.  Some will without a doubt.

It all depends on what they want as a business model.

In my company I made the choice to focus on a niche market.  I could easily expand my offerings into a broader aspect and have more work.  However I enjoy the niche that I operate in and I have plenty of work.

My first build was a Hawken kit from TOW.   It is a heavy gun, and I enjoy shooting it and it shoots very well.  It is going to F'ship with me in a couple of weeks.   


Fleener

[L Meadows]

No need for a Hawken, but I would like to see the SMR offered in percussion like the Whitson shown on his website that Jim’s used for inspiration for his SMR.

I'm sorry, but any bumpkin (or most bumpkins) could convert one of Jim's fine SMR's to percussion. So you're OK with cutting others out of having a halfstock Hawken just to have Mr. Kibler change out a lock for you?

Bumpkin? If it’s as simple as you say then adding it as an option shouldn’t interfere with a Hawken kit!

L,
I regret calling you a bumpkin. I get cranky and say stupid things when when I've had too much coffee. 

No problem, we all have those moments. I realize most on here are builders, but some of us, like me, are not. I wish I had the skills to build a rifle from a blank, but I’m not kidding myself, I don’t. I guess it’s a matter of paying for what you want. For me that’s a percussion SMR, which seems reasonable from my standpoint, but then again may be totally unreasonable to Jim Kibler as it seems he is having no problem selling the SMR kit as it is. Guess what’s reasonable to one is unreasonable to another.

[redheart]

It certainly sounds reasonable, maybe for some reason it's just not cost effective for him right now. "Too many irons in the fire" perhaps? 
Maybe he'll get on here and tell us why.

[Mike Brooks]

If you want a Hawken go to Don Stith. He has the best Hawken kits out there. Doesn't the HAWKEN SHOP sell Hawken kits as well? I would assume so since they freakin call it THE HAWKEN SHOP.....
 I'll not assume to tell Kibler what to make, I'll leave that up to him.

But Mike, if Jim does a Hawken kit, it would be another opportunity to hold classes on how to put one together and finish it.

Regarding the popularity of Kibler kits, with current interest outpacing fine kits by others, I think they may appeal to 2 main groups. One, someone who wants a high quality gun that will rival some custom guns at a fraction of the cost. Two, someone who wants to feel they built a gun but lacks experience and tools to tackle a fine, but not CNC’d kit, let alone a scratch build. Obviously there are going to be a lot more folks who don’t have the confidence or experience to do a scratch build for what they want or a more challenging kit. At ALR some of us “in the bubble of hobby builders” can start to think we are mainstream.

Not me, maybe you could teach that one.

[Bob Roller]

If I was building kits to sell to the public I would consider having a suitable number of percussion options.

Like it or not, there are more percussion shooters then flint.  This forum is biased towards flintlocks, nothing wrong with that.

Look at the demand for the TC Hawken or GPR.  Now who knows how many of those same people will spend more money for a higher quality rifle.  Some will without a doubt.

It all depends on what they want as a business model.

In my company I made the choice to focus on a niche market.  I could easily expand my offerings into a broader aspect and have more work.  However I enjoy the niche that I operate in and I have plenty of work.

My first build was a Hawken kit from TOW.   It is a heavy gun, and I enjoy shooting it and it shoots very well.  It is going to F'ship with me in a couple of weeks.   


Fleener

Two years ago I reduced my niche in muzzle loading when I stopped making any kind of locks.The triggers are all I will do now and do them only to have "something"to do and for the few dollars they bring.
  I started with a caplock in 1951 and built my first muzzle loader in 1957.I was well aware of flint locks but nobody had one
and after several years I did try making locks.They were not a good quality lock but they would fire a cap and were copied from al lock made by P.I Spence in Marietta,Ohio.Mr.Spence was 97 and encouraged me to copy his design and later I was able to make locks of my own design with "V"springs.
   My inspiration in print was Major Ned Roberts and the caplock rifles he wrote about in his book called "The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle" and I have had it for decades and at one time it was owned by E.M.Farris,an original founder of the NMLRA in 1933.There was NO interest at all in flintlocks until Chet Shoults offers one that worked but at $35 it was expensive so few were sold.ONE local man,Toby Brown had an original flint lock and Bill Large rerifled it and it was used in competition.
There was a noticeable lag in ignition due to the lack of a proper vent which in this case was a hole thru the barrel with no
fast flash liner. The flash was there but lost at the vent and was close to  fuse in performance or seemed like it.
My preference today is still the caplock rifle of the American Northeast and the even finer rifles from the British top makers and they were the inspiration to at least try to make upgraded lock mechanisms along the ideas of the Brits and the last Hawken lock I made in 2019 had an English style mechanism with the bridle on three posts and the sear on a precisely fit pin.
I admire Herb who is closer to 90 by 3 years than I am and still making complete rifles that are highly thought of for good reasons that need no explanation from me.
OK, My rant for 31 August 2021 is over.
Bob Roller

[Herb]

Thanks, Heinz and Borderdogs and Bob.  Here is a better picture of that antelope buck and rifle.

Here I am at age 85 with that 15/16" .54 H&H barreled Carson Hawken and a mule deer I shot off-hand at 93 yards (Lasered after the shot by a friend).  Now I can hardly lift that 11 pound Bridger rifle onto my bench, but I can still shoot this rifle in matches.

The top rifle is the Mule Deer rifle.  It is exact to all Carson Hawken dimensions except for the 15/16 barrel instead of 1 1/16 across the flats.  The 13 1/4" length of pull on all three rifles is important. The middle is another Carson copy with a one-inch barrel.  Bottom is my first Bridger copy, correct in all dimensions except for a two-inch shorter barrel.

My lighter Carson copy is the most useful hunting and target rifle for me of the maybe 100 or so I have built, including 6 or 10 eastern longrifle schools.  LONG is the weight problem, or muscle.  Did I mention I have a torn right rotator cuff?  If you want to build a lighter Hawken see my description of this rifle here:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=51055.msg506848#m

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

We are all excited about the precision and quality of Jim's kits, and have visions in our heads of rifles we would like to own, made from his great kits.  In the late 70's  and early 80's, I built nearly 300 Hawken rifles for the late Don Robinson at his shop here in Prince George.  Even with a Solstrom 12 spindle carver it took a week to build a Hawken rifle that sold in those days for about $700.  There was not enough profit in this venture, and the shop, at least the muzzleloading rifle end, eventually closed.
The cost of tooling to build an authentic Hawken rifle of the quality of his other two offerings, would be staggering.  Even so, I would welcome a Hawken rifle kit from Jim.  The Hawken rifle is on even par with the Jaeger and the English Sporting rifle, as the finest hunting style rifle a person can carry.  And they possess a charm, grace and utility that is hard to deny.

[Leatherbark]

If Mr. Kibler ends up making this style of rifle he should just call it a "Plains" rifle since he has a "Colonial" and the "Southern Mountain".   

On another note my hat is off to Herb and Mr. Roller!

Bob

[Dan'l 1946]

This one in the Smithsonian is what I would like to see in original flintlock form. It was obviously a flintlock that was converted. I saw it at the Smithsonian when I was there several years ago.

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_414955

The Smithsonian Hawken has a flintlock converted to percussion, but other than the lock, there is zero evidence that the rifle was flint. The lock panel isn’t notched for the cock to stop on the lock plate. The breach is a percussion bolster. It’s much more likely Sam used an old flintlock converted to percussion on a built to be percussion full stock, than that the rifle was restocked, rebreached and the lock was reused.

If Sam Hawken built that rifle as a percussion piece and converted the lock, he was definitely having an off day. It looks like the job was done by a drunken chimpanzee using a hacksaw and some dynamite. One thing to note is the lock says S. Hawken, and if it truly is an early rifle, it strikes me that it should be J &S Hawken. Just a thought....

[G_T]

I'd be up for an SMR percussion, absolutely! Even one that looks like a flint conversion. That could be cool. But late Hawken or similar? Nope. I'd have no interest in shooting such a beast, so no interest in building one either. I've had such in my hands once. That's why I know I have no interest. Now if I needed a club...

[Clark Badgett]

This one in the Smithsonian is what I would like to see in original flintlock form. It was obviously a flintlock that was converted. I saw it at the Smithsonian when I was there several years ago.

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_414955

The Smithsonian Hawken has a flintlock converted to percussion, but other than the lock, there is zero evidence that the rifle was flint. The lock panel isn’t notched for the cock to stop on the lock plate. The breach is a percussion bolster. It’s much more likely Sam used an old flintlock converted to percussion on a built to be percussion full stock, than that the rifle was restocked, rebreached and the lock was reused.

If Sam Hawken built that rifle as a percussion piece and converted the lock, he was definitely having an off day. It looks like the job was done by a drunken chimpanzee using a hacksaw and some dynamite. One thing to note is the lock says S. Hawken, and if it truly is an early rifle, it strikes me that it should be J &S Hawken. Just a thought....

Sam built rifles before he went to St. Louis. The lock could have been a recycled lock from earlier, a well known practice in those days. During the height of the original Hawken shop days, they would use any locks they could get their hands on. Isn't there another Hawken besides that one that has a converted lock with the regular percussion bolster.

[flinchrocket]

Clark, I think there is a full stock at Center of the West museum with a flintlock plate and a percussion bolster.

[RAT]

I examined that rifle in Cody this April. It's not a Hawken. The rifle was made by Jacob Fordney. The top barrel flat shows evidence of peening which was then overstamped with the Hawken stamp.