Nw Rifle Build

[Jeff Higgins]

So, I know when you guys talk “rifle builds”, it usually involves a lot of black plastic, black anodized aluminum, “80%” uppers, suppressors, 6.5 something-or-another (Grendel, Creedmoor, etc.) and all of that kind of stuff. Well, this one is going to be a little different than that. You see, I have finally treated myself to a real, genuine Hawken rifle.

Yes, the real Hawken is still being made, by the same company as Samual and Jacob started in St. Louis, Missouri way back in the 1820’s. It has changed hands many times, of course, having been owned and operated by J.P. Gemmer up until WWI, and then various other owners until the 1980’s when one Art Ressel purchased the company. He kept it in St. Louis until the early 21st century, when he sold it and retired. The current owners moved it out of St. Louis, and it now resides, of all places, right here in Oak Harbor, Washington, out in Puget Sound on Whidbey Island. The real Hawken Shop.

While they will certainly sell you a completed rifle, I elected to buy one of their “90% inletted” kits. Mine will have a 34” tapered octagon (1 1/8” at the breach, 1” at the muzzle) barrel in .54 caliber. Deep cut rifling with a 1:48” twist, round ball only. And yes, this was the twist Jacob and Samual settled upon as ideal. It is marketed today as a “compromise” twist, suitable for round ball and conical (like the T/C Maxi Ball). We are told round ball needs a slower twist, like somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1:66” twist, lest too heavy a charge cause the patch to simply strip the rifling, or that it "over-stabilize" the round ball. The kicker, though, is that the rifling in the real Hawken is simply cut too deep to seal a bare bullet - it needs a patch to fill the rifling and seal. And, as deep as it is, even very heavy hunting charges will not cause that patched round ball to strip the rifling.

I went ahead and upgraded the stock from plain maple to a light tiger striped maple. They call it their #4 grade, where standard is #3 and the fanciest, “presentation” grade is their #6. I told them I wanted something distinctive, but not gaudy, something suitable for a hunting rifle that would have been available when the two brothers founded the company. They told me that their #4 is their most popular on a “using” rifle, where anything fancier is more for display rifles.

They should be finished gathering the parts and assembling the kit in a couple of weeks. I’m looking forward to a relaxing winter project in finishing this rifle. It’s going to be kind of big and heavy, at 10 1/2 to 11 pounds, but that’s o.k. That’s just what they are. That should help with recoil a bit, since they tell me a full hunting charge is anywhere from 140 to 160 grains of FFg behind a .530” ball. They also say that zeroed with such a load at 125 yards, which is the range Samual and Jacob always used, that a half charge of 70 to 80 grains will put it dead on at about 75 yards, making for a great, low recoil plinking load.

I’m really looking forward to this. I have both a T/C “Hawken” which is anything but (but did prove to be a fantastic hunting rifle) and a Lyman “Great Plains” rifle that is a much better representation. Both are great rifles, but neither one is a completely accurate representation. This new rifle will be, because, well, it is actually a real Hawken. Just amazing to me that in this day and age they are still being made, and actually still being made on much the same equipment that Samual and Jacob used. It was all moved up here from St. Louis. I think that’s pretty cool. I’ll post pictures when I pick it up, and as I make progress.

Here are a couple of finished rifles from Art Ressel's shop, before he sold it:

[LWJ]

Ok. I don’t own a single firearm. And reading this made me want one. Cool.

[Jeff Higgins]

Western folklore tells us that the Winchester was "the rifle that won the West". Hogwash. Aficionados of the big single shot "buffalo rifles", like the 1874 Sharps, Remington Rolling Block, et al will try to tell us that these big single shot breach loaders were the rifles that did it. Hell, I even have a ball cap that says "Sharps made the West safe for Winchester". More hogwash.

The rifle of America's westward expansion was the "plains rifle", a generic term applied to a style of muzzle loader that was initially developed during the fur trade era, the era of the "Mountain Man". Eastern, or "Kentucky", or "Tennessee" rifles were long of barrel and small of caliber, typically running .40-.50 caliber with 40"- 43" barrels. These proved to be both inadequate and unwieldily to the fur trappers, plying the Missouri River in keel boats and the Rocky Mountains on foot and on horseback.

They needed something both easier to carry, and far more powerful. Distances were greater and animals were bigger. As a result, barrels got shorter and bores got bigger. The average barrel length shrank to about 33" - 34", and the bores grew to average about .54". Thus was borne the "Rocky Mountain Rifle", or the "Plains Rifle".

The rifles produced in St. Louis by the brothers Hawken ("Hachen" in their native Dutch) proved to be the ultimate expression of the breed, and the most desirable by far. Such luminaries as Kit Carson, Hugh Glass, Jim Bridger, Marriano Medina, and others would carry nothing else. A common misperception, however, is that every Mountain Man engaged in the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade carried one. We can thank Robert Redford's Jeremiah Johnson for that, I guess. The truth of the matter is that the fur trade had pretty much played out by the time Samuel and Jacob really got into full rifle production. We date their production to having commenced in the early 1830's, in earnest anyway, but the last Rendezvous - the annual "trade fair" on the Green River at which the trappers sold their wares and resupplied was in 1840.

No, the Hawken was really, more than anything, the rifle of the Oregon Trail. By the time they had actually acquired theirs, the old Mountain Men such as Carson, Bridger, Medina, and others were now guiding settlers' wagon trains across the Great Plains. They knew the country like the backs of their hands, and proved to be an invaluable resource to these westward bound pioneers. And, of course, the Army took full advantage of their knowledge of both the terrain and the locals as well.

Four of the most famous of these Hawken rifles survive today in various museums. The Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Marriano Medina, and John Brown rifles are all still with us, and very well (indisputably) documented. The rifles produced today by the Hawken Shop are of the later pattern, similar to Carson's and Bridger's rifles. These were produced by Samuel after his brother Jacob had died. The Medina and Brown rifles are of the time in which Jacob was still alive, and represent a much more "custom" kind of a build. After Jacob's death, in order to ensure the company's survival, Sammuel adopted a more standardized "production line" approach. Far more of his rifles, stamped "S. Hawken St. Louis" survive than those built with his brother and stamped "J. & S. Hawken St. Louis".

Mine will be of the later "S. Hawken St. Louis" pattern, as continued by J.P. Gemmer. These are actually the more refined, more practical "shooters", so they are the ones that have carried through at the Hawken Shop. They have not really changed, however, from those produced in the 1850's - 1870's by Samuel himself and then J.P Gemmer. No real reason to mess with success, I guess.

[Por_sha911]

Regardless of what some folks say, the Hawken in a cool rifle to own. Congrats on your upcoming addition to the family.

[Jeff Higgins]

Thank you. Like I said, I'm pretty excited to finally add a real Hawken to the family. It's been a long time coming.

Many importers and manufacturers supply "Hawken" rifles. It's become a somewhat ubiquitous moniker for any half stocked muzzle loader. Unfortunately, most of today's "Hawken" pattern rifles miss the mark by a good deal. Thompson / Center started this trend in the 1970's with their "Hawken" rifle, one of which I purchased and built in about 1979. It has proven to be an absolutely fantastic hunting rifle, and I've taken more game with it than I will ever remember. It is, however, not even close to the "Hawken" pattern. It's more of an upper New England region German "Jaeger" pattern, with lots of fancy brass furniture, engraving, etc.:



Its big attraction to me, initially, was its ability to shoot the heavy conical bullet, as shown in the photo. A .54 caliber round ball only weighs 230 grains. That thing, a Lyman Great Plains Bullet, weighs 460, twice the weight. Far more effective on game, per our modern thinking. And, boy, I have to say - a fair number of deer, elk, and black bear would not argue.

.54 caliber round ball, T/C Maxi Ball, and Lyman Great Plains bullet:



But that's not really the same, is it? If we are going to hunt with "period" equipment, is that really right? I began to think not. The next step was going to be a round ball shooter. The problem, though, is I think I went "too far". My next rifle build was a Tennessee "Poor Boy" long rifle. Round ball shooter, but of .50 caliber and flintlock ignition. Kind of difficult in our wet Pacific Northwest fall weather, and marginally effective on mule deer, elk, and black bear. Although I did manage to take one or two of each. I just needed more of a "Western" rifle:



So, next up was a Lyman Great Plains Rifle. This is a much, much better representation of the Hawken. .54 caliber, round ball only. I have to say, for anyone wanting a "Hawken experience" at minimal cost and commitment, this is the one. It really is a fantastic rifle. Very, very close in most details. In the end, however, an imported rifle built to a cost. It's great for what it is, but it only served to whet the appetite for a real Hawken:



So, that's what's next. A real Hawken. I want to get one while I can. Before I'm either too old, or they are too old. Hell, they have only been made, continuously, for 200 years. God only knows when they'll stop. I want mine before they do...

[Por_sha911]

I recently read 50 Famous Firearms You've Got to Own Rick Hackler (Gun Digest). The Hawken was definitely one of the 50. I hated that book because with each page I was thinking

[Superman]

Professor Higgins' printed lectures are always a great pleasure.

[Rusty Heap]

Higgins you still have an RC hydroplane to finish lest we forget!

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by Superman

Professor Higgins' printed lectures are always a great pleasure.

I agree with this. I have no interest in owning, but lots of interest in knowing and JH's explanations are pretty concise interesting.

[Jeff Higgins]

It occurs to me that I've used this term throughout the course of this thread without really explaining what's going on. What is it, exactly, and why do I keep saying "patched round ball only", and why would that even be desirable?

The patched round ball is an important part of our shooting history. It was the first widely accepted, practical projectile for both the smooth bored musket and the rifle as well. In essence, it's an undersized ball held in place in the barrel by seating it inside of a cloth patch. Again, a picture is worth a thousand words:


The above photo shows a patched round ball just being started in the muzzle. Notice it's not completely wrapped in the patch. The patch only has to go up far enough around the ball to get between it and the bore, so just over halfway up.

Like I said, the ball is undersized. I shoot either .530" or .535" dia in my .54 caliber rifles. My "standard" patch is .015" thick Irish Linen, which I have found to be tough enough to not burn through over heavy hunting charges. The rifle bore is a nominal .540" dia, and the rifling grooves run from .004" deep to .008" deep, depending on manufacturer. So, the patch takes up the windage between ball and bore.

The patch is lubed in any one of a number of ways. For just plinking, with light charges and when any load is going to be fired fairly soon, just plain old spit does a wonderful job. We just toss a patch in our mouth when we're dropping the powder charge down bore and it's good and wet and ready when we want to load the ball.

For hunting, when we're going to carry the thing around for awhile, spit will dry out. Or, if it's really freaking cold, it might even freeze. Neither is conducive to accuracy. So, we substitute some form of grease or oil. Back in the day, bear grease and sperm whale oil were the most prized for this duty. Today we use Crisco Oil or some brand of modern "wonder lube".

To speed things up a bit in the field, most of us use a "loading block", pre-loaded with extra patched round balls. Here's another 1000 words worth:



So, these are the original, "period correct" projectiles for use in these kinds of rifles. They are not without their problems, of course, and about midway through the 19th century were already on their way out. The militaries of the world were the first to drop them, due to the difficulties involved in maintaining any sort of a "rate of fire" with them. They simply get more and more difficult to ram down the bore as the bore gets more and more fouled. Tighter patch and ball combinations, when used with the lubes available back in the day, will prove well neigh impossible to get down the bore after as few as two or three shots. Not a big deal when hunting, we just swab the bore. Big, big deal when fighting...

So the militaries of the world came up with the first "improvement". Or, more specifically, a gentleman by the name of Minie' in either France or Belgium (can't remember which, so hopefully our Belgian shooter can help me out - Stijn?). Anyway, these are like a big airgun pellet, hollow on the bottom. They are so undersized that they will actually just drop freely down a clean bore. As the bore fouls we have to ram them home, but it never gets difficult. That hollow base then expands to grab the rifling when the charge goes off. Not nearly as accurate as other schemes, but certainly "good enough" when firepower is maybe a bit more important than accuracy. Oh, and that darn skirt will blow out if we try to load the charges that round balls will accept. In the Civil War, for example, these things were held to about 800-900 fps in an effort to not blow the skirts. Not really all that great for hunting.

[Jeff Higgins]

Because it was limited to rather light powder charges, and was not all that accurate anyway, the Minie's ball never really found favor in the civilian markets. They were, however, busy developing their own improvements. Enter the "picket bullet", or the "sugar loaf" bullet, essentially a solid base version of the Minie'. These were short in length, not really much heavier than round balls, and were still patched. But they were getting there - now they were experimenting with ever longer, heavier bullets.

The ultimate development of all of this became the cross-patched conical lead bullet. Much heavier for caliber than the round ball, Minie', or picket bullets. Bore sizes started to drop, as even .40-.45 caliber rifles were now throwing heavier lead than the old .54, .58, and .69 caliber front-stuffers.



Fancy target rifles were even made with the barrel initially longer than desired, with the forward 3"-4" being eventually cut off (after having guide pin holes drilled) to form what was known as a "false muzzle". This false muzzle was a loading guide to ensure the bullet was centered on the patches, and that the whole works was introduced properly into the muzzle:



The patches were finally abandoned when we learned we could seat a "naked", grease grooved bullet if its driving bands were properly sized. The bottom driving bands are bore diameter, so they will start easily with a thumb, and the top driving bands are groove diameter so they will engrave the rifling on the way down. These, incidentally, require a rather clean bore if we have any hope of loading them. Here are my two favorites again, with the round ball for comparison:



Alas, today we have gone a step or two further with a couple of modern developments. First was the plastic sabot, made to hold an undersized jacketed pistol bullet. The most common of these are .50 caliber sabots holding.44 caliber bullets meant for the .44 magnum. Next up along this road of development were essentially modern "Minie'" bullets, comprised of a bore diameter jacketed spitzer with a plastic cup base, hollow on the bottom, mimicking the function of the hollow base on the Minie'. These will, however, take substantially heavier charges without blowing out.

[Jeff Higgins]

So, um, *sigh* - where am I going with all of this rambling? Right back to that round ball. And what it means to hunt with a "primitive weapon", what it means to challenge ourselves by using the implements of our forefathers.

Here is a "modern muzzle loader" being wielded by a hunter as allowed in many states. Stainless steel, fiberglass stock, modern optics, and modern projectiles propelled by modern propellents. Yes, there is no shortage of modern "black powder substitutes" available today to make things a whole lot easier (cleaner) for modern shooters.



To me, that image and what it represents just misses the point entirely. It represents a level of "gamesmanship", of "cheating", of "rules beating" that I find distasteful. So, once again returning to the patched round ball (as I did with the flint lock) represents my quiet little one man protest. Not that anyone else would ever give a schitt, but I do. For me, it's long since ceased to be about how much game I can take, but rather how I take that game. Sounds silly, I know. But it's important to me, at this stage of my life.

[oldE]

Jeff,
Great job with your descriptions and explanation. Thank you for that.
Re: the guys who hunt with modern muzzle loaders, it seems to me it is akin to comparing a Singer with a '66 911.
There are always those who seek the ultimate and latest, others are happier going "old school" Heck, some guys have even been known to drive the wheels off an old Sportster blowing by new sport bikes. Go figure!

Best
Les

[Jeff Higgins]

That's a great comparison, Les. Guys spending big bucks for a thoroughly modern car so they can have that "early 911 experience".

So, there is one aspect of the patched round ball that its nay sayers never fail to point out. And, by golly, they are absolutely right when they do, there is no arguing physics. The round ball is, essentially, the absolutely worst projectile we have ever come up with, from an external ballistics perspective.

We are used to modern rifle bullets of spitzer and boat tailed spitzer designs that have G7 ballistic coefficients in the neighborhood of .400 to .600 or higher. These retain velocity to extreme ranges, minimizing bullet drop and wind drift while maximizing down range impact energies. The lowly round ball isn't even in the same league, with G1 ballistic coefficients in the neighborhood of .080 or worse. They shed velocity and energy like nobody's business.

A .535" diameter round ball, for example, has a ballistic coefficient of only .075. When started out at 2,000 fps (which is about average with a heavy hunting charge), it has dropped to only 1165 fps by just 100 yards. At 200 yards, it's all the way down to just 824 fps. Muzzle energy is 2042 foot pounds, but it's down to only 693 ft lbs by 100 yards, and a meager 347 ft lbs at 200 yards, or about what a .38 Special or 9mm will do at the muzzle. With a 125 yard zero (which is what Jacob and Samuel recommended), it drops about two feet at 200 yards.

These are truly pitiful ballistics by modern standards. There was an awareness already by the mid 19th century that we had to do, and could do, much better. I believe the term "point blank range" must have been coined during the round ball era, as its reduction in effectiveness as range increases is just so stark. Hunters must have pined for something better, and no small effort was put into developing just that.

So, today, in our "modern" era, it's not uncommon even in muzzle loading circles to deride the effectiveness of the round ball, and to label those who would continue to use it when "better" options exist as being somewhat "irresponsible". We are told that back when they were in common use, the attitude towards game was much different than today. Wounding and losing game was simply shrugged off as a part of it. Modern hunting ethos, of course, does not allow for that, and it shouldn't.

There is, of course, another answer to this. I'm reminded of the old adage "get as close as you can, son, then get a little closer". The round ball is, no doubt, effective within its range limitations. We have to know what those are, and accept them. When hunting with my .50 caliber flinter, I endeavored to never shoot past 50 yards. Bow hunters and handgun hunters accept similar range limitations. Anyone seeking to truly emulate our forefathers by way of hunting with muzzle loading rifles should probably do so as well.

Oh, a modern muzzle loader with a scope, loaded with a saboted spitzer bullet and three 50 grain Pyrodex pellets is entirely capable of cleanly taking game at 200 yards. No doubt about it. But claiming "success" as a "muzzle loader hunter" strikes me an awful lot like taking your Singer to a vintage race and claiming "victory"...

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

To me, that image and what it represents just misses the point entirely. It represents a level of "gamesmanship", of "cheating", of "rules beating" that I find distasteful. So, once again returning to the patched round ball (as I did with the flint lock) represents my quiet little one man protest. Not that anyone else would ever give a schitt, but I do. For me, it's long since ceased to be about how much game I can take, but rather how I take that game. Sounds silly, I know. But it's important to me, at this stage of my life.

I know hunters use the modern black powder rifles are for getting a jump on deer season (before modern rifles are allowed).

The concept of

it's long since ceased to be about how much game I can take, but rather how I take that game.

make perfect sense to me. I enjoy challenging myself in going 9/10th in my 1987 air cooled Carrera rather than going 3/10th in a modern sports car. It becomes a skill thing rather than just a fast number.

[Por_sha911]

Opps. Looks like Les beat me to the analogy.

[fanaudical]

Great reading and info - thanks for that. There is always something to learn.

Some years ago, my BIL gifted me a used "Hawken-style" .50 cal CVA percussion rifle that somebody else had built from a kit (looks to have been built in the early '80's). He has a few black powder rifles (Pederlosi and Lyman, I think) and shoots in friendly competition with his friends in Colorado.

I don't hunt but do enjoy putting holes in paper. I thought he was kidding the first time I tried a 100 yd shot and he told me to aim ~20" above the target. I can group OK at 50 yds; I'm happy just to be on paper at 100 yds. It certainly gave me an appreciation for how difficult it was to effectively hunt with one of these; it surely is a test of skill.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

I know hunters use the modern black powder rifles are for getting a jump on deer season (before modern rifles are allowed).

That is exactly how it started for me. In the late 1970's to late 1980's, Washington allowed us to hunt deer and elk over the course of three different seasons - archery, muzzle loader, and modern firearm. I only picked up the muzzle loader, as a young eager hunter, to take advantage of that "extra" season. And, being somewhat underwhelmed by muzzle loader ballistics (when compared to modern firearms), I felt I "needed" the "most powerful" option available.

So I built a Thompson / Center "Hawken" in .54 caliber. It was the only American made option, and took one hell of a powerful load. 430 grain "Maxi Ball" over 120 grains of black powder. Boy was that thing ever effective on game. I've lost track of what has fallen to it. Perfectly capable out to 150, maybe 180 yards. It was all about having the most effective rifle that fell within the rules.

Well, sometime in the early to mid 1990's, I started noticing other hunters armed with these "modern muzzle loaders". And I started to question what we were doing. It really started to bother me, seeing these stainless steel adaptations of Remington Model 700's, replete with fiberglass stocks and all (scopes remain, thankfully, illegal here in Washington on muzzle loaders). Then the introspection started - if they are pushing the limits, how is it that I'm not, with my Maxi Ball loads?

So I tossed it all and went "all in". Started hunting with the .50 caliber flint lock. Successfully, too, but I have to tell you, there were some "moments". A 180 grain .50 caliber ball at 2,000 fps is simply inadequate for Western big game, and the flint ignition proved to be a challenge in our constant drizzle. So I took a half step back, and went with a .54 caliber percussion rifle shooting round ball.

So, yes, I understand the desire to take advantage of the "extra" seasons. The idea, however, was to offer those seasons to those willing to hunt with a far more challenging weapon. I think, at least initially, everyone understood what that meant. And, at that time, the only muzzle loaders available were those of traditional planform. Eventually, however - as we do - the "gamesmen" started pushing the limits of the rules, and came up with rifles never envisioned when those rules were written. That's where it stands today.

Granted, some states have "muzzle loader" seasons, some have "black powder" seasons, and some have "primitive weapon" seasons. Some of those specifying "muzzle loader" allow these modern rifles, and even smokeless powder. Some with "black powder" seasons allow breach loaders firing metallic cartridges, so long as they are loaded with black powder. The "primitive weapons" states seem to have kept it the purest. Pennsylvania, for example, requires flint ignition, round balls, wood stocks, open sights, and real black powder.

While I think it is time for a reassessment in most states, I also recognize that that ship has sailed. Too many stainless steel, scope sighted, plastic stocked, plastic sabot, black powder substitute shooters out there to reign this in. "Joe Sixpack" just wants to kill as much game as possible within (mostly) the law, and wants every advantage available to help him do so. It's his right, dammit, to hunt muzzle loader seasons with these modern contrivances.

Well, I also enjoy the right to do it the traditional way. So I will.

Originally Posted by fanaudical

Great reading and info - thanks for that. There is always something to learn.

Some years ago, my BIL gifted me a used "Hawken-style" .50 cal CVA percussion rifle that somebody else had built from a kit (looks to have been built in the early '80's). He has a few black powder rifles (Pederlosi and Lyman, I think) and shoots in friendly competition with his friends in Colorado.

I don't hunt but do enjoy putting holes in paper. I thought he was kidding the first time I tried a 100 yd shot and he told me to aim ~20" above the target. I can group OK at 50 yds; I'm happy just to be on paper at 100 yds. It certainly gave me an appreciation for how difficult it was to effectively hunt with one of these; it surely is a test of skill.

These things, when loaded and cared for properly, can be surprisingly accurate. I fully expect sub 2" five shot groups with my hunting loads at 100 yards. I've never failed to achieve that, with any rifle, after a bit of load development. And zeroed at the recommended 125 yards, they shoot fairly "flat" out to about 150. They do fall off dramatically after that, though. Which is o.k. - they have lost so much punch by then, we really have no business shooting at game any farther away than that anyway. Their trajectories are useful within the ranges of their limits of power, and vis versa. Pushing either only leads to disappointment on both ends.

[tabs]

The first rifle i ever bought (1972) was a TC Hawken in 45 caliber wt 2 bullet molds, tang sight, short starter and a few other goodies for $110.00. The guy was outa work and needed money. The sn wa under 10k and had a high polish blue finish. Still have it..

Bought it from him at the West End Gun Club shooting range which at the time was located in the wash between Upland and Alta Loma. So many houses were built they had to move the club out to the hills on the east side of Lylte creek.. i always liked it out there.

[Jeff Higgins]

Well, I finally picked up the "kit" yesterday, after many delays. I kinda don't know what to say - it is far, far "rougher" than I anticipated. I've built half a dozen muzzle loader kits, from Thompson/Center, Dixie Gunworks, Lyman, and Pedersoli. All were touted as "95% inletted", requiring "minor fitting" with "common hand tools".

This thing is anything but. The "stock", such as it is, is one really nice piece of tiger striped maple. But for as "inletted" as it is, they could have just given me a chainsaw and pointed to a tree out back. It ain't even close. Nothing is even close to fitting. I honestly believe that I'm looking at a couple hundred hours of very skilled gunsmithing to get this thing together.

*Sigh*... they do pride themselves on being "different", as not using any modern CNC machining or anything like that. The metal parts are indeed outstanding, and quite correct - all are made from castings made from molds taken from original rifles. All are produced by the same methods Samuel and Jacob used. Which means, alas, a great deal more hand fitting than the typical "modern" kit. Which, o.k., also means a much more "individual" rifle than those made from the mass produced, CNC machined kits.

Which, o.k., I guess I was more or less aware of going in. I knew this was kind of the "top rung" of this particular ladder, short of out and out scratch building. I just wasn't prepared for just how close to "scratch building" this was going to be. I'll get there, it's just going to take a whole lot more effort than I thought it would.