Jim Kibler's Bess kit

[axelp]

I agree. A long time ago, I had a builder make me a long rifle and I told him to make the best of what he liked to make. He made me a very nice looking Lehigh Valley style gun that had a tremedous amount of drop. It looked great, but it was a real challenge to shoot. I adapted my hold and was able to shoot it, standing offhand, but any other position, it was terribly awkward. I loved the gun, and think the builder did a fine job and used top shelf parts etc. The inletting was very tight and the finish was dead on etc... but I grew to hate that thing. Shooting prone was impossible. Any shot that required elevation or declination was awkward... I finally sold it off.

About the same time. I had a buddy cobble together a Jim Chambers PA smoothbore fowler. It was plain jane, and nothing to look at as far as finish, but It fit me perfectly and I actually found that I was able to shoot it more accurately that the rifle. It became my go to hunting gun and it still is to this day.

For a Bess though... I see the wanting to get one historically correct. I have only shot a Pedersoli repro and it checked a lot of boxes for me. It was fun to shoot-- never handled an original, but if it fit me poorly and hung funny... no thanks.

K

[5judge]

I'm one of those looking forward to acquiring the upcoming Kibler Brown Bess. Had the opportunity earlier this year to tour the Kibler facility and was awestruck by both the machinery and the personnel. Am also a tad awestruck by some of the contributions to this tread. This forthcoming reproduction is to be but one thing: as true a reproduction (within the strict meaning of the word) of the Pattern of 1756 Long Land King's musket, something, if introduced into a stack of British arms on the Boston Common in 1775, would be undetected. To suggest it be altered to suit current tastes as if buyers are seeking a comfortable arm for an afternoon putting a few score rounds into a 200 yard target, I submit  absolutely misses the point of the thing. The standard 'Bess was issued to British troops regardless of the recruit's shape or size; they adjusted to it, not it to them. I'm minded of queuing up to receive our M14 rifles in basic at Leonard Wood in January of 1967. We each received an identical rifle, be we 140 or 240 pound weight, 5 foot six or six foot five. It's a military thing, whether in 1775 or 250 years later. Order this as perhaps the very closest thing to a pristine Pattern 1756 King's musket as art and science can fabricate or, alas, look elsewhere. No object relating to our upcoming semiquincentenial (whew!) will come close to the Kibler 'Bess as something to hand down to coming generations.

[rfd]

I'm one of those looking forward to acquiring the upcoming Kibler Brown Bess. Had the opportunity earlier this year to tour the Kibler facility and was awestruck by both the machinery and the personnel. Am also a tad awestruck by some of the contributions to this tread. This forthcoming reproduction is to be but one thing: as true a reproduction (within the strict meaning of the word) of the Pattern of 1756 Long Land King's musket, something, if introduced into a stack of British arms on the Boston Common in 1775, would be undetected. To suggest it be altered to suit current tastes as if buyers are seeking a comfortable arm for an afternoon putting a few score rounds into a 200 yard target, I submit  absolutely misses the point of the thing. The standard 'Bess was issued to British troops regardless of the recruit's shape or size; they adjusted to it, not it to them. I'm minded of queuing up to receive our M14 rifles in basic at Leonard Wood in January of 1967. We each received an identical rifle, be we 140 or 240 pound weight, 5 foot six or six foot five. It's a military thing, whether in 1775 or 250 years later. Order this as perhaps the very closest thing to a pristine Pattern 1756 King's musket as art and science can fabricate or, alas, look elsewhere. No object relating to our upcoming semiquincentenial (whew!) will come close to the Kibler 'Bess as something to hand down to coming generations.

And therein lies good personal objective reasoning for owning/shooting a "proper Bess". 

My take is but a tad different, as explained prior, but will satisfy both my 18th and 21st century needs.

From Jim's description of his original, and if his replica is rendered to its 1756 spex, we shall all be satisfied musketeers.  In my case, for both a reenactor and shooter. 

 Tally ho, huzzah, huzzah!

[Daryl]

If I might make a suggestion, if you cannot scrunch your cheek straight down onto the comb & see the breech aligned with the bayonet lug front sight, sneak up on it from below and on the side. Learning to shoot whatever gun you have in your hands, is the goal.

[rfd]

If I might make a suggestion, if you cannot scrunch your cheek straight down onto the comb & see the breech aligned with the bayonet lug front sight, sneak up on it from below and on the side. Learning to shoot whatever gun you have in your hands, is the goal.

Yeah, become a contortionist, I don't think so and to each their own. 

[Joe S.]

This thread has me quite confused. I thought, in the armed forces, where ever, when ever, the unit armorer would happily make any alteration, customize your issued rifle to personal taste

[rfd]

This thread has me quite confused. I thought, in the armed forces, where ever, when ever, the unit armorer would happily make any alteration, customize your issued rifle to personal taste

Yer thinking is in the wrong century.

[WalnutRed]

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.

Just curious, why do you think the "pointed in a general direction" was a myth?  The only reproduction British manual of arms from the period that I've seen had the soldier turning his head to the right when he pulled the trigger to avoid flash from the man standing on his left.  Look at a largish skirmish such as Lexington and Concord. Compare the number of casualties to the estimated number of shots fired on both sides and you quickly see that only a small fraction of the shots fired hit anything other than trees and dirt. If "aiming" was considered important the Bess would have been designed as a smooth rifle by simply adding a rear sight, not designed as a musket.

[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.

Just curious, why do you think the "pointed in a general direction" was a myth?  The only reproduction British manual of arms from the period that I've seen had the soldier turning his head to the right when he pulled the trigger to avoid flash from the man standing on his left.

They turned the head slightly to the right while in the "position of a soldier," before ever manipulating their muskets. This allowed each to keep the man to his right in his peripheral vision for taking his cues. They moved their right foot back to fire for stability, returning to position immediately after. With every man in line shooting in the same direction, flash was unavoidable. Most of it would pass in front of a soldier's face, as everyone's lock was several inches out in front of the line.

Look at a largish skirmish such as Lexington and Concord. Compare the number of casualties to the estimated number of shots fired on both sides and you quickly see that only a small fraction of the shots fired hit anything other than trees and dirt. If "aiming" was considered important the Bess would have been designed as a smooth rifle by simply adding a rear sight, not designed as a musket.

The Americans were not professionals, and many British troops were fresh recruits without much training. Just because soldiers on both sides were inexperienced does not mean aiming was not considered important. It was, for the very reason you cite as not: hitting trees and dirt was a waste of powder and lead, precious commodities on both sides.

This link has more about the British and learning to aim their muskets:  https://www.oldfortniagara.org/that-the-men-be-taught-to-take-good-aim-marksmanship-training-in-the-british-army-in-the-18th-century

[WalnutRed]

Thank you for the link. I'm always open to new to me information.

[smart dog]

Hi,
As Tumbledown wrote, the British valued marksmanship and particularly so as the 18th century progressed and after experience fighting in America.  They had soldiers shooting at marks and they often selected the best marksmen to join the light infantry units.  Bailey has a chapter on marksmanship in his book "Small Arms of the British Forces in America".  It is worth the read.  The British army began to realize toward the latter half of the 18th century that their most effective fire was when soldiers were allowed to fire at will rather than on command. First, it allowed the soldier to aim and fire when on target not when commanded and second, there was not the dense cloud of smoke making each successive volley less effective because they could not see anything.  I have built and shot every pattern of British musket from the first pattern 1730 to the short land pattern 1769.  I can shoot offhand a 5" group at 70-85 yards with any of them using a patched round ball or bare ball loaded on top of a wad and a card on top to secure it.  This is despite the fact that none fit me well.  I cannot do that with the Pedersoli and Miroku repros because the trigger pulls are insanely heavy and the locks are not nearly as good as those I make.  In fact, they are pathetic.

dave

[Bob Gerard]

I can shoot offhand a 5" group at 70-85 yards with any of them using a patched round ball or bare ball loaded on top of a wad and a card on top to secure it.  This is despite the fact that none fit me well.  I cannot do that with the Pedersoli and Miroku repros because the trigger pulls are insanely heavy and the locks are not nearly as good as those I make.  In fact, they are pathetic.
dave

Dave, that's quite remarkable.

[rfd]

Hi,
As Tumbledown wrote, the British valued marksmanship and particularly so as the 18th century progressed and after experience fighting in America.  They had soldiers shooting at marks and they often selected the best marksmen to join the light infantry units.  Bailey has a chapter on marksmanship in his book "Small Arms of the British Forces in America".  It is worth the read.  The British army began to realize toward the latter half of the 18th century that their most effective fire was when soldiers were allowed to fire at will rather than on command. First, it allowed the soldier to aim and fire when on target not when commanded and second, there was not the dense cloud of smoke making each successive volley less effective because they could not see anything.  I have built and shot every pattern of British musket from the first pattern 1730 to the short land pattern 1769.  I can shoot offhand a 5" group at 70-85 yards with any of them using a patched round ball or bare ball loaded on top of a wad and a card on top to secure it.  This is despite the fact that none fit me well.  I cannot do that with the Pedersoli and Miroku repros because the trigger pulls are insanely heavy and the locks are not nearly as good as those I make.  In fact, they are pathetic.

dave

Most excellent shooting, Dave!

What's your entire load each, for patched or bare?

[wvcruffler]

Is Kibler planning on making a new style lock for it? Or was he going to use the same as the fowler?

Would assume it will be an accurare Land Pattern stock. He's pretty detailed oriented.

[Joe S.]

This thread has me quite confused. I thought, in the armed forces, where ever, when ever, the unit armorer would happily make any alteration, customize your issued rifle to personal taste

Yer thinking is in the wrong century.

I was being sarcastic 

[Snowmoon]

As Jim said on page one, he will copy the original p. 1756 in his care in every detail including the lock, although he may alter some markings on said lock.

[smart dog]

Hi,
On a different forum, I suggested to Jim that the lock should just have "TOWER" and no date on the tail of the lock.  The reason is that contractor names and dates were no longer engraved after 1764.  If his kit is to represent a gun used in the American war by British and patriot forces it should just have Tower or Dublin Castle on the plate indicating it was made after 1764.  Some long lands used by Patriot forces could be older guns made before that date but not likely with British troops.  So just having Tower on it satisfies use for both British and patriot forces during the Rev War.   It would really be a plus if Jim could offer a choice of Tower or Dublin Castle on the lock when you order the kit.  So many of the British regiments that arrived early in the war were armed by the Irish establishment.   

dave

[rfd]

"Dublin Castle" = excellent!

[Daryl]

If anyone knows for sure, please advise what the diameter of the ball used and what powder charge in the issue ctgs.?

[rfd]

If anyone knows for sure, please advise what the diameter of the ball used and what powder charge in the issue ctgs.?

Dave will have all the proper details but for the most part Bess bore's ranged mostly around .75 but could go upwards to .80 (as I have read), thus a .69 ball was mostly used with a .75 bore, as we do today.

I believe the early on Brit Bess cartridges were well upward of 165 grains due to the lesser potent gunpowder of the 18th century, but amended lower in the 19th century as powder making processes got better with increased potency.

[smart dog]

If anyone knows for sure, please advise what the diameter of the ball used and what powder charge in the issue ctgs.?

Hi Daryl,
The standard British cartridge for the Brown Bess included a 0.69 caliber ball and 165 grains of 1F or 2FF black powder.  Loading procedure was you opened the cartridge with your teeth, primed the pan with at least 10 grains of the powder from the cartridge and closed the pan cover, then poured the rest of the powder down the barrel and stuffed the paper wrapped ball behind it. You rammed that down and prepared to present your firelock and fire.  I have regiments of reenactors live fire at my range.  When they volley fire with historic loads, the universal comment is they can feel the blast in their feet. 

dave

[rfd]

165 gains of modern black powder, even if coarse 1F, down the tube and under a .69 ball is beyond insane!

[Daryl]

Thanks David.
The US army, according to "Firearms of the American West", used the same 165gr. powder and a .64 calibre ball in their "roughly" .69cal. muskets.
In 1820 or so, due to the improvement in powder used, the load was reduced to 135gr. As with the post above, the charge included the prime and
was loaded in the same fashion. At some point in the US, the ball diameter was increased to .65, which resulted in double the hits at 100 yards on the
test targets showing improved accuracy. The vel. of the 165gr. charge was said to be 1,700fps, but I do not believe that vel. noted was an accurate one.

[Bob Gerard]

The Gunpowder used in the AWI was not equivalent in strength to today’s Black Powder. Adjustments in powder volume are often suggested for modern loads.

As a follow-up question, will this kit be including sling swivels?

[bob in the woods]

I hear about folks complaining about the impossibility of aimed fire with a Bess or other types of smoothbores, but we [ our local group] don't have any trouble hitting what we aim at . I had many conversations with Paul Daiute about this. First...I don't and never have "aimed down the barrel "
Practice will show you the correct sight picture you need, and then it's all about repeating the cheek contact until it's second nature.  Your eye is the rear sight so I focus on the front sight alone, and doing contortions isn't ever an issue.