Jim Kibler's Bess kit

[rfd]

We have a fantastic original 1756 Long Land pattern that we we be copying in every detail including the lock.  The only change I anticipate making to the original is modifying some of the lock markings.

Thanks

As smart dog alluded to in his previous post concerning the issue most of us with Pedersoli and other Bess guns have, will the Kibler Bess have a butt stock comb geometry that will better facilitate actually aiming the gun?

[Tumbledown]

Since Jim is copying a 1756, it will aim the same as that. Any modifications to the geometry and it won't be a copy. Given soldiers were encouraged to practice marksmanship whenever circumstances allowed, it is possible to learn to aim. The problem I suspect is many try to aim using modern techniques coupled with the myth soldiers just pointed in a general direction and hoped for the best.

[Jim Kibler]

I quickly measured the drop from a sighting plane to be around 2 1/8".  This was a quick coarse measurement, so it might vary slightly from this number.  This original Bess seemed to point fairly well for me.

[Scota4570]

I am glad stock geometry is in the radar screen.  I have a Parker hale 2-band that is stocked like the originals.  The drop is insufficient to use the sights with a normal shooting stance. 

[JLayne]

I agree that it should stay as close to the original as possible without altering the architecture since the idea, at least as I understand it, is to make a copy that is an accurate reproduction of an original (unlike what can be purchased at present outside of going to a custom builder). I have the Pedersoli version and am very much looking forward to replacing it with one of Jim’s reproductions for that reason. Once he’s done, assuming it’s a success, maybe he can be convinced to do a Charleville as well.

[rfd]

I agree that it should stay as close to the original as possible without altering the architecture since the idea, at least as I understand it, is to make a copy that is an accurate reproduction of an original (unlike what can be purchased at present outside of going to a custom builder). I have the Pedersoli version and am very much looking forward to replacing it with one of Jim’s reproductions for that reason. Once he’s done, assuming it’s a success, maybe he can be convinced to do a Charleville as well.

Well, yes, kinda. 

I have a Pedi Bess and the drop at the comb is 1-5/8" which means sighting down the bbl is for contortionists only, which is why I'm looking for a period correct replica firelock/Bess that is better for aim shooting. 

IF a firelock replica is based fully on an original that has a good overall shouldering, aiming, shooting geometry, for most folks; fine, sign me up, I want one yesterday.  IF not, well, no thank you.  If I'm in the minority of reenactors, so be it, but I want a firelock that I can aim and shoot, rather than just shoot.  And I'd rather that firelock be a Bess rather than a Charlie.

As a Rev War reenactor, we do strive for authenticity of kit, be it firelock, garb, or whatever, but in reality the vast majority of our audience at events don't get into the minutiae of period correctness and are there for the overall historic immersion experience and absolutely for the boom, flash, and smoke.

[Scota4570]

I just pulled out the Parker Hale I mentioned above.  The drop and comb is 1.5", heal is 2.0", LOP is 14.25.  It is not usable for me.  It really disappointed and frustrated me.  The best barrel you can get is attached to a horrible stock. 

[smart dog]

Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel.  For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop.  However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well.  Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel.  It will hurt a bit.  If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately,  I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band.  I am doing one of these this winter for a client.  For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s. 

dave

[Leatherbark]

Seems I read once that if you aim the Bess and Enfield with your body perpendicular to the weapon it aims better.   But it is un-natural for an American to aim like that so when we aim it like a Kentucky rifle it can be frustrating.  But with at least a Pedersoli Bess I once had, the tilting up of the barrel was needed to get the point of impact on target, so it relieved the aiming problem immensely. If I would have had to aim down the barrel it would have been a nightmare.  So hopefully the Kibler Bess will shoot low so we can adjust by tilting the barrel to find the correct sight picture that also will allow for a comfortable hold.  But as Mr. Kibler said it aimed fine for him.

[rfd]

Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel.  For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop.  However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well.  Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel.  It will hurt a bit.  If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately,  I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band.  I am doing one of these this winter for a client.  For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s. 

dave

Hi Dave,

Thanx for your post, really good scoop. 

As to the ramrod and reenacting, it's only used to ping the breech plug to proof the bbl is empty, which can be accomplished with a wood ramrod fitted with a brass ferrule.  I run 105 grains of mostly "home brewed" 1-1/2F for blank cartridge reenacting and 70 to 90 grains of Swiss 1-1/2F for "target shooting" with a patched .69 ball - no cartridge used or needed and a separate range rod for ball ramming and tube cleaning. 

Since it appears Jim's Bess will be a 1756 replica that might be problematic for proper aiming, though Jim states its comb drop is 2-1/8" which at least for me will be far better than the Pedi's 1-5/8" ... or maybe Jim could take pity on us shooters and fudge the drop a tad lower.   

[rfd]

Seems I read once that if you aim the Bess and Enfield with your body perpendicular to the weapon it aims better.   But it is un-natural for an American to aim like that so when we aim it like a Kentucky rifle it can be frustrating.  But with at least a Pedersoli Bess I once had, the tilting up of the barrel was needed to get the point of impact on target, so it relieved the aiming problem immensely. If I would have had to aim down the barrel it would have been a nightmare.  So hopefully the Kibler Bess will shoot low so we can adjust by tilting the barrel to find the correct sight picture that also will allow for a comfortable hold.  But as Mr. Kibler said it aimed fine for him.

With my Pedi 2nd Land Pattern Bess I added a neo magnet to the bayonet lug to raise the front sight up a good 1/4" to help with aiming, but 1/2" would be better yet.

[Bigmon]

IF it is true that in the 18th century most folks / soldiers were of smaller stature, then might that be a reason that guns from that era, and therefore accurate copies of them, might seem to not have enough drop for us behemoths of modern times?
And, just what do we want, more comfortable shooters or more accurate reproductions??
Just musing..................

[rich pierce]

The Brits and the French do feared quite a bit in drop of some guns. The 1728 fusil ordinaire from TRS has a great deal of drop off in the buttstock. I’m guessing that there was variation from model to model.

Less drop doesn’t need as wide a plank to cut stocks from. Certainly seems to have been a factor in some Carolina guns and later NW guns.

[Tumbledown]

Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel.  For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop.  However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well.  Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel.  It will hurt a bit.  If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately,  I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band.  I am doing one of these this winter for a client.  For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s. 

dave

Hi Dave,

Thanx for your post, really good scoop. 

As to the ramrod and reenacting, it's only used to ping the breech plug to proof the bbl is empty, which can be accomplished with a wood ramrod fitted with a brass ferrule.  I run 105 grains of mostly "home brewed" 1-1/2F for blank cartridge reenacting and 70 to 90 grains of Swiss 1-1/2F for "target shooting" with a patched .69 ball - no cartridge used or needed and a separate range rod for ball ramming and tube cleaning. 

Since it appears Jim's Bess will be a 1756 replica that might be problematic for proper aiming, though Jim states its comb drop is 2-1/8" which at least for me will be far better than the Pedi's 1-5/8" ... or maybe Jim could take pity on us shooters and fudge the drop a tad lower.   

The British firing position was with the right foot back and pointed out, turning the body slightly.

If they could become proficient enough to practice marksmanship, the problem in aiming a Bess is ours, not the gun's. It can be done.

Modifying it to appease modern shooters means it would no longer be an authentic reproduction, and Kibler might as well use a Pedersoli as a prototype.

[2 shots]

I agree that it should stay as close to the original as possible without altering the architecture since the idea, at least as I understand it, is to make a copy that is an accurate reproduction of an original (unlike what can be purchased at present outside of going to a custom builder). I have the Pedersoli version and am very much looking forward to replacing it with one of Jim’s reproductions for that reason. Once he’s done, assuming it’s a success, maybe he can be convinced to do a Charleville as well.

Well, yes, kinda. 

I have a Pedi Bess and the drop at the comb is 1-5/8" which means sighting down the bbl is for contortionists only, which is why I'm looking for a period correct replica firelock/Bess that is better for aim shooting. 

IF a firelock replica is based fully on an original that has a good overall shouldering, aiming, shooting geometry, for most folks; fine, sign me up, I want one yesterday.  IF not, well, no thank you.  If I'm in the minority of reenactors, so be it, but I want a firelock that I can aim and shoot, rather than just shoot.  And I'd rather that firelock be a Bess rather than a Charlie.

As a Rev War reenactor, we do strive for authenticity of kit, be it firelock, garb, or whatever, but in reality the vast majority of our audience at events don't get into the minutiae of period correctness and are there for the overall historic immersion experience and absolutely for the boom, flash, and smoke.

. most would not know it was incorrect if you were carrying m-14's

[rfd]

Hi RFD,
As I wrote previously for shooting, the patterns 1730, 1730/40 upgrades, 1742, and 1748 are the best for most modern people because they have more drop at heel.  For me, no pattern fits all that well because I need >2.5" of drop.  However, with the 5.25" tall butt plate (Pedersolis and Mirokus are 4.75" tall) you can raise the gun high in the shoulder and just set the lower third of the butt in the pocket of your shoulder and it will work pretty well.  Just don't fire a historic load with a 0.69" ball and 155 grains of powder down the barrel.  It will hurt a bit.  If I were reenacting a Rev War patriot soldier but also wanted a Brown Bess musket I could shoot accurately,  I would choose a pattern 1742 with conversion to a steel rammer and a brass nose band.  I am doing one of these this winter for a client.  For Brit troops, you just have to get used to the pattern 1756 and later and straighter pattern 1769s and 1777s. 

dave

Hi Dave,

Thanx for your post, really good scoop. 

As to the ramrod and reenacting, it's only used to ping the breech plug to proof the bbl is empty, which can be accomplished with a wood ramrod fitted with a brass ferrule.  I run 105 grains of mostly "home brewed" 1-1/2F for blank cartridge reenacting and 70 to 90 grains of Swiss 1-1/2F for "target shooting" with a patched .69 ball - no cartridge used or needed and a separate range rod for ball ramming and tube cleaning. 

Since it appears Jim's Bess will be a 1756 replica that might be problematic for proper aiming, though Jim states its comb drop is 2-1/8" which at least for me will be far better than the Pedi's 1-5/8" ... or maybe Jim could take pity on us shooters and fudge the drop a tad lower.   

The British firing position was with the right foot back and pointed out, turning the body slightly.

If they could become proficient enough to practice marksmanship, the problem in aiming a Bess is ours, not the gun's. It can be done.

Modifying it to appease modern shooters means it would no longer be an authentic reproduction, and Kibler might as well use a Pedersoli as a prototype.

There is no "marksmanship" in reenacting, so anyone who solely shoots blanks could care less about a firelock's comb drop. 

As a range shooter for accuracy, attempting to employ proven rifle accuracy form with a Bess that's only good for 18th century firelock form is beyond frustration.  I want my cake, and eat it too, period.

[Hudnut]

It is not unusual to see antique longarms with the comb cut down or dished out to compensate for lack of drop.
I wonder if it would be practical to offer two stock options - one an absolutely accurate reproduction of the original and a second with greater drop to suit modern handling preferences?

[Scota4570]

I bet Jim is on top of this and we have little to worry about.  He mentioned that the original felt fine to him earlier. 

IF the stock has insufficient drop to be shot from a comfortable position by a modern shooter Jim will not sell many after the word gets out.  Nobody wants a gun that hurts you and can not be aimed.   On the 2-band Enfield the stock was designed for an obsolete and ill conceived shooting position.  I do not know if it was a hold over from earlier British guns.  My Baker copy is just fine.   Some 2-bands were restocked for officers and target shooters because of the poorly designed stock.  I do not think copying a poorly designed stock was a good idea for Parker Hale. 



Bill Adams explains the stock, https://www.myjacobfamily.com/johnjacob/jacobsrifles7 .  The idea was that your cheek weld is way back closer to the butplate than a modern position.  It is like how many first time shooters try to hold a long gun.  To make that work the rifle was pointed more straight out from the chest, not, across the chest as we do today.  It looks like how the "tactical shooter" do it minus the hand over the top of barrel.  This is a very flawed way to shoot off hand accurately. 


The standing position was somewhat modified once rifled arms became standard
issue in the British Army. Soldiers were required to qualify with their weapons
out to the maximum range on the sights. The kneeling position was mandated
from 400 to 600 yards. The “Hythe” standing position is described as “Face the
target, and after making a half turn to the right, advance the left foot ten inches to
the left front, (six to the front and eight to the left), toes pointing to the front, and
right foot pointing to the right. The left elbow well under the rifle and close to the
body; hand firmly, but without constraint, grasping the rifle just behind the lower
band. The right elbow to be raised nearly square with the rifle – right hand
holding the small of the butt lightly, thumb pointing to the muzzle. The centre
(rather higher than lower) of the butt to be pressed firmly to the shoulder with the
left hand, the top of the butt being as nearly as possible with the top of the
shoulder, and the body firm and upright.” If you can get into that position, you
will be able to see through the sights, yet the Field Excercises manual continues:
“should the above position feel constrained, some slight modifications can be
resorted to with advantage.” It was further suggested to “hold the head as far back
as convenient from the sights, which will make them appear more distinct.” What
about that left elbow close to the body? Wimbledon regulations stipulated that in
shooting standing, the left elbow could be rested against the body provided that
the “little finger of the left hand is in front of the projection in front of the lock-
plate...” Resting the elbow against the side was considered “ungraceful and
unsoldierlike.”

[Snowmoon]

I very much appreciate Dave's contributions to the thread. Great stuff from an expert. I suspect a pinch of face squishing and a judicious dash of stock shifting on the shoulder (with an appropriately high dominant side elbow) will help correct any problems with the exact stock fit.

Regarding sales, once the kits are established, I can't imagine the demand there will be for what is shaping up be a truly exquisite lock. We are getting the finest land pattern lock (per my notes on the 1756 from Dave's lecture) executed with the best materials and fitment (barring extensive hand work) on the market. Very exciting.
PS: At 10-11 pounds, Kibler's Land Pattern ought to make a great prop for "pokey drill," "musket PT," or turn of the century iron wand exercise! Some inspiration (first like is for a light stick, second a long gun, third the iron wand):

https://youtu.be/S38Y36RUFdA?si=j9botMQJY-wSvuEp

[rfd]

I bet Jim is on top of this and we have little to worry about.  He mentioned that the original felt fine to him earlier. 

IF the stock has insufficient drop to be shot from a comfortable position by a modern shooter Jim will not sell many after the word gets out.  Nobody wants a gun that hurts you and can not be aimed.  .....

I would think the larger part of a Bess consumer market will be the reenactor community.  The other two factions I see are replica collectors and shooters. 

If, as Jim has posted, the comb drop of the original is 2-1/8" that will help heaps with most shooters, or shooter and reenactors. 

[smart dog]

Hi,
Jim's kit will be outstanding and it will be a real Brown Bess.  I have no doubt about that.  I for one will be very excited about it because I turn down many requests to build Besses and when I say "No" I rarely have a very good alternative to recommend except maybe another maker who may or may not be willing to make one from TRS parts. I don't like not being able to point folks to a solid solution and Jim's kit should be a good one.  I think there will be a big market not only from reenactors but historic sites, museums, as well as muzzleloader shooters who want a historic military gun.  If he can find a way to tap into the British and European market, the sky could be the limit but I am not sure he will need to take on that regulatory and tariff nightmare to sell them well.

dave

[Scota4570]

2 1/8" is a bunch! 

I'll buy two. I have a friend who is silly for Brown Besses.  I'll need one keep one just because It will be so well made and historically interesting.   

[Tumbledown]

There is no "marksmanship" in reenacting, so anyone who solely shoots blanks could care less about a firelock's comb drop. 

As a range shooter for accuracy, attempting to employ proven rifle accuracy form with a Bess that's only good for 18th century firelock form is beyond frustration.  I want my cake, and eat it too, period.

You miss the point. The comb drop was not an issue then, it should not be an issue now if you learn to fire the gun as historically done.

Trying to use rifle accuracy form with a Bess is like trying to drive a Model T in the Daytona 500. Stop complaining about a problem you are creating.

[rfd]

There is no "marksmanship" in reenacting, so anyone who solely shoots blanks could care less about a firelock's comb drop. 

As a range shooter for accuracy, attempting to employ proven rifle accuracy form with a Bess that's only good for 18th century firelock form is beyond frustration.  I want my cake, and eat it too, period.

You miss the point. The comb drop was not an issue then, it should not be an issue now if you learn to fire the gun as historically done.

Trying to use rifle accuracy form with a Bess is like trying to drive a Model T in the Daytona 500. Stop complaining about a problem you are creating.

Read again my posts in this thread.  There are reenactors (blanks) and there are shooters (live rounds).  Some of us do both with our firelocks.

Therein, you miss my point - I don't care about "historic accuracy" when it comes to musket firearm shooting form - I will NOT adapt to the 18th century, it needs to adapt to ME in the 21st century.

It appears that Jim's 1756 Bess will appeal to all.

[Birddog6]

After hearing  (reading) all of this, I come to the conclusion that some people are
buying by Looks or Visions, rather than what Fits.  Big Mistake.  The aggravation
shooting it will never end, if it doesn't FIT you. It is supposed to be a Enjoyable
experience, not a hassle every time you go. 

Go to a place that has a bunch of ML'ers & Shoulder them.
Close your eyes. Shoulder the gun.
Turn at the waist 90 deg left.
Open your eyes & if you are not looking straight down the barrel without adjustment, it
does Not Fit you. You need More or Less drop.

Now Jim has what ? a dozen kits you basically sand & snap together.  The only way it
could be easier is if he assembled it for you. But you still need it to FIT after it is done.

So take a day & drive someplace & try a bunch of them & Find the rifle that Fits.

Then get with Jim & find one that has Same Drop & fits rather than what it Looks Like or
what you THINK will work. (You going to put $1000-1500 in what you THINK    )

I dearly love the looks of a Hawken rifle. From a child I dreamed of having a Hawken rifle.
In reality, to me it is like shouldering a boat oar with a  anchor on the muzzle.  I fought
them & fought them for Years.  Then one day I was at a ML shop & I tried about 15 dif style
rifles. When I shouldered a Isaac Haines rifle with a swamped barrel.  OMG. I was hooked on
the Lancasters & the swamped barrels & have since them.  But that is just me.

Doesn't matter What it is, What you envision, What it Looks Like, What others shoot.  IF it
don't fit YOU it will never fit & never be comfortable, and that is aggravating.

Find the one that Fits & be happy.