Author Topic: A dreaded copy! (Read 14278 times)

Jim Kibler · « **on:** February 26, 2010, 07:49:24 AM »

Or at least pretty close. Here's one from a while back. Largely built at this past WKU seminar. Based on the original Wallace attributes to Shenandoaha County, VA. Let me know if you have any questions.

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2010, 08:02:20 AM »

Jim,

very nice!! Love the stock architecture. The wrist, butt and cheek piece look like they are exactly where they have to be!!! Your work is a great inspiration..

Thanks

B Shipman · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2010, 08:51:38 AM »

Gorgeous. Love it. See my post under your trends topic. Nothing is harder than making a bench copy. Yet it will expand your abilities. Mitch Yates did this rifle also and had it at the Lewisburg show. Really good as well. Another up and comer for sure. You're already there and have been. Just top notch.

northmn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2010, 03:09:15 PM »

Very nice. The issue of making a copy is more sophostry than anything. As you stated "pretty close". The ability to develop your own style takes a bit of experience. The "schools" as Kindig dubbed them, were developed out of a copy of styles. I like to do "pretty close" building as I am artistically challenged, you may not be, but it is easier for me to copy a carving style and slightly modify it etc. than develop one for myself. Hopefully you can treasure that weapon for some time, or get a good price for it, whatever your plans.

DP

tallbear · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2010, 03:51:05 PM »

Jim
You know I like this rifle.It's good to see it again,thanks for posting it!!!!

Mitch

Captchee · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2010, 04:10:13 PM »

looks very well done . nice job

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2010, 05:30:22 PM »

Maybe it's a copy, but I still see Kibler.

C Wallingford · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2010, 06:14:10 PM »

Nice work, Jim. You have the touch.

keweenaw · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2010, 07:00:41 PM »

The day that I can clean up the areas around the carving that well will be the day I know I've gone too far! Great work Jim. Now why anyone would build a long rifle that was patterned after some southern gun is another matter.

Tom

Mark Elliott · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2010, 07:11:13 PM »

That is very nice. It like it!

D. Taylor Sapergia · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2010, 07:14:14 PM »

Just plain lovely, Jim. It has that great architecture for a shooter's rifle. Finished crisp - Kibler style.

t.caster · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2010, 07:16:21 PM »

Nothing wrong with that, it's BEAUTIFUL!

Stophel · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2010, 09:00:40 PM »

Is it as twisty and crooked as the original gun is??

rich pierce · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2010, 09:38:58 PM »

I really love the original and this one looks right to me. I've wondered if the original is as early as suggested, because it looks "fully evolved" to me, not as robust feeling (even though it has a very large buttplate, it seems sleek) as the Marshall or Faber rifles, or even Oerter's work, which hint strongly of being close to Germanic roots.

I think that Shumway illustrated another gun very similar to this one, suggesting it's not a "one-off".

eagle24 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 26, 2010, 09:39:31 PM »

Beautifull rifle as always Jim! Great Job!

Joey R · « **Reply #15 on:** February 26, 2010, 10:22:40 PM »

Another Kibler Keeper! Beautiful rifle.

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #16 on:** February 26, 2010, 11:01:06 PM »

Quote from: richpierce on February 26, 2010, 09:38:58 PM

I really love the original and this one looks right to me. I've wondered if the original is as early as suggested, because it looks "fully evolved" to me, not as robust feeling (even though it has a very large buttplate, it seems sleek) as the Marshall or Faber rifles, or even Oerter's work, which hint strongly of being close to Germanic roots.

I think that Shumway illustrated another gun very similar to this one, suggesting it's not a "one-off".

The reason it looks "fully evolved" may be due to the fact that it's not heavily descended from the tradition of big klunky Germanic guns! Now these aren't my thoughts, but they make sense to me. Wallace feels strongly that the architecture of this rifle is heavily influenced from trade gun / fowler architecture. I agree as well. Look at the profile, the high breach, the wrist and forend which narrows rapidly, the lower toe line which makes a gentle curve toward the entry pipe, the lack of a strong cheekpiece, etc. I had an original 1750-1760 fowler here a while back and the stock profile of it was pretty darn close to this rifle. The fowler had a little lower comb and the toe didn't swoop down as you approach the butplate, but other than that it wasn't too far off. One more bit of information regarding dating. Wallace has repeatedly indicated that in all his study, the two features which correlate with date of manufacture BEST are butplate and breach width. If I remember correctly, this gun had a butplate around 2 1/8" and a breach of around 1 1/8". Just some things to consider.

Stophel · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2010, 12:53:49 AM »

To me, it looks like something from about 1780. The sideplate alone looks too much like a copy of a Lancaster sideplate.

rich pierce · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2010, 01:29:38 AM »

I like 'em with big buttplates, for sure!

The pendulum swings one way to another on dating early unsigned rifles. In Kindig's day, some 1790 rifles were called pre-Revolutionary. The pendulum has probably swung the other way now and there may be a trend to late date rifles. PM sent

WJS · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2010, 02:37:38 AM »

Nice rifle. I have been looking at trying to build my first rifle (I have done a couple kits) and want something from Shenandoah region of Virginia in the 1770 time frame.

Did you leave the metal in the white?

Thanks.

smylee grouch · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2010, 06:24:05 AM »

This is one of those very ungaudy elegant rifles,clean lines and very apleaing. Kinda makes you want to go hunting. Thanks for the picture show.

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2010, 07:19:40 AM »

Thanks to all. sure appreciate the encouragement. I actually liked this rifle when it was done. Not something that happens too often with me! WJS: The lock and barrel was just slightly darkened or aged a touch to take off the harsh bright finish. I don't remember exactly what I did, but I likely rusted them and cleaned off the rust to produce a little surface texture and then darkened them with a product sold by Historic House Parts under the name of "Brass Darkening Solution". It will darken steel as well as brass. Like I said, it cuts the harsh bright finish. Seems to be plenty durable as well. Stophel: I had to straighten things out on the copy. Wouldn't have been able to stand building it exactly like the original!

Thanks again,
Jim

Stophel · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2010, 08:57:35 AM »

I have a gun like this drawn out for possible future build...I don't think I could make it quite that crooked either!

Excellent job, by the way.

How did you handle the box opening?

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2010, 04:25:58 PM »

Stophel,

I made th box opening pretty much just like the original. For those sho haven't seen this part of the original, the box cavity is basically formed by a single radius from one edge to the other. Don't have any pictures of this or I would post them. This radius forms the undercuts that traps the dovetailed lid in place. A little of a pain to cut, but it's a pretty neat feature.

tallbear · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2010, 04:44:56 PM »

Heres a pic of what Jims talking about .
Mitch

News:

Author Topic: A dreaded copy! (Read 14278 times)

northmn

keweenaw

eagle24

WJS